Podcasts about plaintiffs

It's Monday, January 26th, A.D. 2026. This is The Worldview in 5 Minutes heard on 140 radio stations and at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus. (Adam@TheWorldview.com) By Adam McManus The Iranian protests are putting Christians at greater risk The Islamic Republic of Iran is hostile to protestors and Christians alike. Lana Silk of the Christian organization Transform Iran said, “Police are indiscriminately shooting into the crowds. The people try to fight back, but they are unarmed and almost entirely defenseless.” She is certain that more than 12,000 Iranians have been killed, and quite possibly 30,000 or more, reports International Christian Concern. She said, “The streets are now being patrolled by tanks and aggressive armed security forces. People are being rounded up, beaten, imprisoned, and killed. Men, women, and children, it doesn't matter.” Anyone who dares to go outside is in danger. Though Iran's Islamic regime, where 95% of the population is Muslim, treats almost none of its people well, it tends to be especially ruthless with its Christian minority. Iran is currently ranked as the 10th-most oppressive country for Christians. The Iranian government makes no secret about its attitude toward Christianity. Such worship in the country's main language -- Persian, also known as Farsi -- is essentially outlawed, as is any Christian literature written in that language. Matthew 5:10 says, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness' sake, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven.” Vice President Vance announces expansion of Mexico City Policy Appearing at the annual March for Life in Washington, D.C. on Friday, Vice President J.D. Vance spoke up for life, reports LifeNews.com. VANCE: “With the Dobbs decision, what the President did, what the Supreme Court did, was put a definitive end to the tyranny of judicial rule on the question of human life. He shattered a 50-year culture of disposability, one that treated human life as expendable the moment that it became inconvenient. And he empowered our nation and our movement to build a culture of life from the grassroots up.” Vice President Vance outlined some of the Trump administration's pro-life accomplishments. VANCE: “We started by undoing the evils we saw under the previous administration, like, for example, throwing priests and grandmothers in prison for praying outside a[n abortion] clinic. That's over; we stopped it. (cheers) “Where the previous administration mandated taxpayer funding for abortions, including travel costs across the entire government, this administration ended it. (cheers) We have expanded conscience protections for health care workers and defended faith based foster care and adoption. “This administration launched fraud investigations into Planned Parenthood affiliates (cheers) for millions of dollars in [Paycheck Protection Program] loans that were unlawfully received and unlawfully forgiven by the Biden administration. You should not be able to commit fraud and use taxpayer money for abortion. It's that simple! (cheers) “At many of our departments, we've reinstated a ban on the use of fetal tissue in federal research. That's another big one, and this is something we're so proud of. We're returning accountability to our foreign policy as well. “Under Joe Biden, it was the policy of the United States to export abortion and radical gender ideology all around the world. That is what they did with your tax money. (boos) They would relentlessly bully developing countries into parroting their far left views. But under President Trump's leadership, and with our great Secretary of State, we believe that every country in the world has the duty to protect life.” And Vice President Vance cited an expansion of the pro-life Mexico City policy. VANCE: “Today, our administration is proud to announce a historic expansion of the Mexico City policy. We're going to start blocking every international [non-governmental organization] that performs or promotes abortion abroad from receiving $1 of U.S. money. (cheers) We're expanding this policy to protect life, to combat DEI, and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children. “The rule will now cover every non-military foreign assistance that America sends. All in all, we have expanded the Mexico City policy about three times as big as it was before. And we're proud of it because we believe in fighting for life.” Proverbs 31:8 says, “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves.” ICE shot and killed man in Minneapolis Federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old man in Minneapolis on Saturday morning, less than three weeks after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good, amid an ongoing surge in immigration enforcement action across the city, reports CBS News. Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse who worked at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration hospital, was identified as the man killed by a Border Patrol agent. CBS News in Minneapolis reported, “Videos from the scene show that Pretti was holding a cellphone, not a gun, when he was shot.”  However, ICE Commander Gregory Bovino said the agent acted in self-defense after attempting to disarm Pretti. Listen. BOVINO: “An individual approached us Border Patrol agents with a nine millimeter, semi-automatic handgun. The agents attempted to disarm the individual, but he violently resisted. Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, a Border Patrol agent fired defensive shots. “Medics on the scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject, but the subject was pronounced dead at the scene. The suspect also had two loaded magazines and no accessible ID. “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. Then, about 200 rioters arrived at the scene and began to obstruct and assault law enforcement.” That's when an armored ICE vehicle was pelted by stones by angry Leftists. (audio from the streets of Minneapolis) Trump sues JPMorgan Chase for $5 billion over 'political' debanking And finally, President Donald Trump is suing the JPMorgan Chase bank and its CEO Jamie Dimon in a $5 billion lawsuit filed last Thursday, accusing the financial institution of debanking Trump for political reasons, reports Fox Business. The president's attorney, Alejandro Brito, filed the lawsuit Thursday morning in Florida state court in Miami on behalf of the president and several of his hospitality companies. Brito quoted JPMorgan's code of conduct, which states that the bank operates "with the highest level of integrity and ethical conduct." The Trump lawsuit asserts, "Despite claiming to hold these principles dear, [J.P. Morgan Chase violated them by unilaterally—and without warning or remedy—terminating several of [the] Plaintiff's bank accounts." This is not the first time. Sam Brownback, Trump's Ambassador for Religious Freedom, wrote a New York Post column last year in which he said, “If you've ever had a rug pulled out from under you, then you know how it feels to suddenly lose access to your own bank account.  That's what happened to me in 2022, when JPMorgan Chase, America's largest bank, abruptly canceled our newly opened account for the National Committee for Religious Freedom. “[We] launched a national campaign to collect and tell the stories of those who, like us, had been canceled or punished by their banks, payment processors or even insurance companies. We found that most debanking victims have two things in common: Their finances are in order, and they're conservative or religious.” Proverbs 11:3 says, “The integrity of the upright guides them, but the unfaithful are destroyed by their duplicity." Close And that's The Worldview on this Monday, January 26th, in the year of our Lord 2026. Follow us on X or subscribe for free by Spotify, Amazon Music, or by iTunes or email to our unique Christian newscast at www.TheWorldview.com.  I'm Adam McManus (Adam@TheWorldview.com). Seize the day for Jesus Christ.

You have to literally disobey an order in California to be held in contempt. But federal courts are a little more touchy-feely: they will find a contempt for violating the “spirit” of their orders. Tim and Jeff compare the Ninth Circuit's contempt finding against Apple in the Epic Games dispute, and a state litigant who got around a visitation-time order but without violating the letter of the order, so no contempt.Meanwhile, a CEQA plaintiff that won at the Court of Appeal—only to be reversed by emergency legislation and the Supreme Court—learned the hard way that "prevailing" on the law as written means nothing if the Legislature rewrites the rules mid-case.Key points:Contempt requires literal violation in California, not just bad faith. But in federal court, violating the “spirit” of an order is contempt.Legislative abrogation torpedoed $1.2M in CEQA fees: Plaintiffs in Make UC a Good Neighbor v. Regents won significant CEQA victories establishing that crowd noise and alternative locations must be analyzed—then watched the Legislature pass emergency legislation abrogating both holdings. After the Supreme Court reversed, the Court of Appeal denied nearly $1.2 million in private attorney general fees, calling the prior opinion "smoldering ruins, not citable precedent." The court held plaintiffs weren't "successful parties" because they failed to halt the project, even though they vindicated principles under the law as it existed when filed.Ninth Circuit discovery ruling survives en banc review: The court declined to rehear the Trump administration's challenge to a discovery order requiring production of federal reorganization and layoff plans, rejecting executive privilege claims without requiring plaintiffs to show bad faith. Judge Bumatay's dissent warned of a "binding dicta trap" where the panel's comments on what qualifies as deliberative could become binding precedent.California Supreme Court limits Public Records Act obligations: Superior Courts can issue declaratory relief even after documents are produced if the dispute is likely to recur, but the Public Records Act does not impose a statutory duty to preserve documents a public agency identifies as exempt.

If you are the sort of person whose New Year's resolutions read something like: “(1) Shoot for the moon, (2) Do what you love, (3) Change the world” – have we got a guest for you! We're joined this week by former Icelandic prime minister Katrín Jakobsdóttir, who resigned from office in 2024 in order to run for president and is now enjoying a second life as a successful crime novelist and climate activist. Be still, our hearts. We chatted with Katrín about the security threat that climate change and the current geopolitical instability pose to Iceland; her career in politics; and why she wanted to write fiction (“Doesn't everybody?” she asked).   Also in this episode: The Mercosur primer of your dreams! And the disconcertingly relatable story of a ChatGPT-informed wedding gone awry. This week's Inspiration Station recommendations are the 10th edition of the European Review of Books and the Deutsche Welle podcast Delayland.    LISTENER SURVEY: Do you have a moment to help us out? We would be so grateful to hear your thoughts about what we're doing well and where we can improve. Fill out our short, simple survey here.   Resources for this episode:   “32.7% of EU people used generative AI tools in 2025” – Eurostat, 16 December 2025 “Largest study of its kind shows AI assistants misrepresent news content 45% of the time – regardless of language or territory” – European Broadcasting Union, 22 October 2025 “Thinker, Plaintiff, Merkel, Spy” (our interview with the creators of the European Review of Books) – The Europeans, 3 June 2021 The Weapons to Ukraine fund, AKA Czech initiative A Gift for Putin (Dárek pro Putina)   SUBSCRIBE TO OUR NEWSLETTER: Although this episode came out on a Friday, we are a *Thursday* podcast, because who wants to think about the imminent World War III on a Friday? That being said, if you would like to laugh through your tears on Friday, we recommend our newsletter, GOOD WEEK BAD WEEK. It will carry you through a full weekend of existential dread.   This podcast was brought to you in cooperation with Euranet Plus, the leading radio network for EU news. But it's contributions from listeners that truly make it all possible—we could not continue to make the show without you! If you like what we do, you can chip in to help us cover our production costs at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠patreon.com/europeanspodcast⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ (in many different currencies), or you can gift a donation to a superfan. We'd also love it if you could tell two friends about this podcast. We think two feels like a reasonable number. Produced by Morgan Childs, Wojciech Oleksiak and Katz Laszlo Mixing and mastering by Wojciech Oleksiak Music by Jim Barne and Mariska Martina   YouTube | Bluesky | Instagram⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Mastodon⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ | Substack | hello@europeanspodcast.com

This Day in Legal History: 18th Amendment to the US ConstitutionOn January 16, 1919, the 18th Amendment to the United States Constitution was ratified, marking a pivotal moment in American legal history by establishing the prohibition of alcoholic beverages. The amendment prohibited “the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” for consumption in the United States and its territories. It was the culmination of decades of temperance activism, led by organizations such as the Women's Christian Temperance Union and the Anti-Saloon League, which argued that alcohol was responsible for societal problems including crime, poverty, and domestic violence.The amendment passed Congress in December 1917, but ratification by the states was required for it to take effect. That threshold was reached on January 16, 1919, when Nebraska became the 36th state to ratify it. One year later, on January 17, 1920, the Volstead Act—the federal statute enforcing the amendment—went into effect, ushering in the Prohibition era.However, the law led to unintended consequences. Rather than curbing alcohol consumption, it fueled the rise of organized crime, as bootleggers and speakeasies flourished across the country. Enforcement proved difficult and inconsistent, and public support for prohibition waned through the 1920s.Ultimately, the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment on December 5, 1933, making it the only constitutional amendment ever to be entirely repealed. The legacy of the 18th Amendment remains significant as a historical experiment in moral legislation and the limits of constitutional power.A federal judge in Virginia will soon decide whether Dominion Energy can resume construction on its $11.2 billion Coastal Virginia Offshore Wind project, which was halted by the Trump administration last month. The Interior Department paused five offshore wind projects on December 22, citing classified concerns about radar interference and national security. Dominion is now challenging that pause in court, arguing that it violated procedural and due process laws and is causing the company significant financial harm—around $5 million in daily losses. Dominion has already invested nearly $9 billion in the project, which began construction in 2023 and is planned to power 600,000 homes.Similar legal challenges from other developers, including Orsted and Equinor, have already succeeded in federal courts in Washington, allowing their Northeast offshore wind projects to proceed. Those decisions raise the stakes for Dominion's case, which could influence the broader offshore wind industry amid continued hostility from the Trump administration toward the sector. Trump has long criticized wind energy as costly and inefficient. While the outcomes of these lawsuits may let projects move forward, industry uncertainty remains due to ongoing legal battles and political opposition.US judge to weigh Dominion request to restart Virginia offshore wind project stopped by Trump | ReutersA federal judge in Boston, William Young, said he will issue an order to protect non-citizen academics involved in a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration's deportation of pro-Palestinian student activists. The upcoming order would block the government from altering the immigration status of the scholars who are parties to the case, absent court approval. Young emphasized that any such action would be presumed retaliatory and would require the administration to prove it had a legitimate basis.The lawsuit stems from Trump's executive orders in early 2025 directing agencies to crack down on antisemitism, which led to arrests and visa cancellations for several students, including Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil and Tufts student Rumeysa Ozturk. These moves targeted those expressing pro-Palestinian or anti-Israel views on campus. Young previously ruled that these actions violated the First Amendment by chilling free speech rights of non-citizen academics.In his comments, Young described Trump as “authoritarian” and sharply criticized what he called the administration's “fearful approach to freedom.” He limited his forthcoming order to members of academic groups like the AAUP and Middle East Studies Association, rejecting a broader nationwide block as too expansive. Meanwhile, the administration, which plans to appeal Young's earlier ruling, accused the judge of political bias.US judge to shield scholars who challenged deporting of pro-Palestinian campus activists | ReutersA federal judge in California has dismissed a lawsuit filed by the U.S. Justice Department seeking access to the state's full, unredacted voter registration list. Judge David Carter ruled that the department's claims were not strong enough under existing civil rights and voting laws, and that turning over detailed voter data—such as names, birth dates, driver's license numbers, and parts of Social Security numbers—would violate privacy protections.Carter emphasized that centralizing such sensitive information at the federal level could intimidate voters and suppress turnout by making people fear misuse of their personal data. The lawsuit, filed in September by the Trump administration, targeted California and other Democrat-led states for allegedly failing to properly maintain voter rolls, citing federal law as justification for demanding the data.California Secretary of State Shirley Weber welcomed the decision, stating her commitment to defending voting rights and opposing the administration's actions. The DOJ had reportedly been in discussions with the Department of Homeland Security to use voter data in criminal and immigration probes. Critics argue the push was driven by baseless claims from Trump and his allies that non-citizens are voting in large numbers.US judge dismisses Justice Department lawsuit seeking California voter details | ReutersWhy can't people harmed by ICE just sue the agents themselves?U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a federal agency under the Department of Homeland Security, created in 2003. It enforces immigration laws and investigates criminal activities involving border control, customs, and immigration. ICE derives its authority from various federal statutes, including the Immigration and Nationality Act, and its agents operate with broad discretion during enforcement actions.Suing ICE agents or the agency itself is legally difficult. Individuals cannot usually sue federal agents directly because of sovereign immunity, a legal doctrine that protects the government and its employees from lawsuits unless explicitly allowed by law. One such exception is the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) of 1946, which permits lawsuits against the federal government when its employees cause injury or damage while acting within the scope of their employment. Under the FTCA, victims can bring wrongful death or negligence claims, as Renee Good's family is now considering.However, FTCA claims are limited. Plaintiffs cannot seek punitive damages or a jury trial, and compensation is capped based on state law where the incident occurred. The government is also shielded from liability for discretionary decisions made by its employees—meaning if the ICE agent used judgment during the incident and it's deemed reasonable, the claim can be dismissed. In Good's case, the government will likely argue self-defense.Suing ICE agents personally is even harder. The Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents case in 1971 created a narrow legal path for suing federal officials for constitutional violations, but courts have since restricted its use. In 2022, the Supreme Court ruled that Bivens does not apply to border agents conducting immigration enforcement, further insulating ICE officers from personal liability.Criminal prosecution of federal agents is also rare. State prosecutors may bring charges, but only if they can prove the agent acted clearly outside the scope of their duties and in an objectively unlawful way—a high bar that is seldom met.This week's closing theme is by Ludwig van Beethoven. Beethoven, one of the most influential composers in Western music history, revolutionized the classical tradition with works that bridged the Classical and Romantic eras.This week's theme is Franz Liszt's transcription of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — specifically, the first movement, Allegro con brio, catalogued as S.464/5. As one of the most iconic works in classical music, Beethoven's Fifth needs little introduction, but hearing it through Liszt's fingers offers a fresh perspective on its brilliance. In this solo piano version, Liszt doesn't simply condense Beethoven's orchestral power—he reimagines it, capturing the storm, structure, and spirit of the original with astonishing fidelity and virtuosity.The movement begins with the unforgettable four-note “fate” motif, its rhythmic insistence rendered on the piano with punch and precision. From there, Liszt unfolds Beethoven's dramatic argument, demanding the pianist conjure the textures of a full orchestra with nothing but ten fingers and a well-calibrated pedal. Every surging crescendo, sudden silence, and harmonic twist remains intact, though filtered through Liszt's Romantic sensibility and pianistic imagination.It's a piece that asks as much of the performer as it does of the listener—requiring clarity, power, and emotional depth. As a transcription, it's both a tribute and a transformation, placing Beethoven's revolutionary energy in the hands of a single interpreter. We chose this movement not just for its fame, but for how it exemplifies two musical giants in dialogue—Beethoven, the architect of modern symphonic form, and Liszt, the artist who made the orchestra speak through the piano.Without further ado, Beethoven's Symphony No. 5 in C minor, Op. 67 — the first movement, Allegro con brio. Enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The CFO of Wells Fargo joins the show fresh of the earnings call with the stock falling after results. Then a lawyer representing one of the plaintiffs in the supreme court tariff case joins the show for more on why he's calling the Trump administration's tariffs illegal. Plus, Republican Senator Kevin Cramer of North Dakota saying that the Fed Chair should cut a deal and step down in exchange for the DOJ investigation against him being dropped. He explains why. Hosted by Simplecast, an AdsWizz company. See pcm.adswizz.com for information about our collection and use of personal data for advertising.

In this episode, Bill Reid -- a top business trial lawyer -- joins the podcast to talk about his new book, Fighting Bullies, which makes the case for Plaintiff's law. Throughout, Bobby and Bill talk about law firm structures, the law-school-to-big-firm pipeline, and finding purpose in practice.    Links: https://reidcollins.com/person/william-t-reid-iv/  https://www.fightingbulliesbook.com/ 

This Day in Legal History: Judge Robert W. Archbald ImpeachedOn January 13, 1913, Judge Robert W. Archbald of the U.S. Commerce Court was convicted by the U.S. Senate on articles of impeachment and removed from office, becoming one of the earliest federal judges ousted through this constitutional process. The House had impeached him the prior July on thirteen charges of corruption and misconduct, five of which the Senate upheld. Archbald had used his judicial position to secure favorable deals from railroads and coal companies—entities that regularly appeared before his court. These secretive contracts, executed through intermediaries to obscure his involvement, allowed him to purchase valuable coal lands below market value.One of the more egregious acts involved advising a railroad representative on how to amend legal pleadings to improve their chances of winning in court—a direct violation of judicial ethics. After a twenty-eight-year judicial career, Archbald's fall was swift. His defense largely relied on claims of pure motives, rather than denial of the facts. A senator observed afterward that Archbald was “convicted, not so much of being corrupt, as of lack of plain common sense,” noting his failure to grasp the ethical boundaries expected of judges.The Senate vote was overwhelming, with only five senators dissenting. Every former judge in the Senate, save one, voted to convict. Archbald's conviction marked the first successful impeachment for judicial corruption in U.S. history; earlier impeachments, like that of Judge Pickering in 1804, were rooted in issues like insanity, not unethical conduct. The case prompted calls for reform of the impeachment process itself, with suggestions to create a special judicial conduct court or authorize Senate committees to streamline trials. More broadly, the case had a chilling effect throughout public service, reinforcing ethical standards across all levels of government.Uber is facing a high-stakes sexual assault trial in Phoenix that could have sweeping implications for thousands of similar lawsuits. The case, brought by Oklahoma resident Jaylynn Dean, alleges that Uber failed to protect her from an assault by a driver in 2023. Dean claims Uber has long been aware of sexual assaults committed by drivers but has not taken adequate steps to improve rider safety. This trial marks the first federal bellwether case in a massive consolidation of over 3,000 lawsuits involving similar allegations.Uber maintains that it should not be held liable for criminal actions of independent contractors, arguing its safety features, background checks, and transparency are sufficient. Still, the company faces additional lawsuits in California state court and has been criticized for its historic lack of oversight and a culture focused more on growth than safety.A jury in a previous California case found Uber negligent but ruled that negligence wasn't a direct cause of harm. Uber tried to delay Dean's trial, claiming her attorneys influenced the jury pool with misleading advertisements, but the judge allowed proceedings to continue. The outcome could influence settlement talks, regulatory scrutiny, and investor confidence as Uber continues to defend its safety record.Uber faces sexual assault trial in Arizona that puts its safety record under scrutiny | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments in two high-profile cases challenging state laws in Idaho and West Virginia that bar transgender students from participating in female sports teams. While the court previously upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors in Tennessee, that ruling was seen as narrow. The decision to now consider sports-related bans has heightened concerns among transgender rights advocates about broader implications for legal protections.At the heart of these cases is whether such bans violate the Constitution's Equal Protection Clause or Title IX, which prohibits sex-based discrimination in education. Legal scholars warn that the court's ruling could shape future policies affecting transgender people beyond athletics—such as bathroom access, military service, and healthcare. The Supreme Court's conservative majority has previously supported limits on transgender rights, including allowing restrictions on gender markers for passports and banning transgender people from military service.Idaho's law is being challenged by Lindsay Hecox, a transgender college student who has since stopped playing sports, while West Virginia's ban is being challenged by 15-year-old Becky Pepper-Jackson, who has been allowed to compete under lower court rulings. The states argue the laws protect fairness in women's sports by preventing perceived competitive advantages. Lower courts have reached opposing conclusions on the legality of the bans, setting the stage for the Supreme Court to clarify whether restrictions based on biological sex or transgender status require heightened scrutiny.The Court may also have to decide whether its 2020 decision protecting transgender workers under Title VII extends to school settings under Title IX. Legal observers say this case could reshape how courts approach not just transgender rights but broader equal protection claims.US Supreme Court's next transgender rights battle could affect more than sports | ReutersThe U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Citigroup's appeal in a lawsuit accusing the bank of enabling a major fraud at Mexican oil services company Oceanografía, effectively allowing the case to proceed. More than 30 plaintiffs—including bondholders, shipping firms, and Rabobank—allege that Citigroup's Banamex unit knowingly financed Oceanografía to the tune of $3.3 billion between 2008 and 2014, despite the company's mounting debt and fraudulent practices, including forged Pemex signatures.Oceanografía, which serviced Mexico's state-owned oil giant Pemex, collapsed in 2014 and was later declared bankrupt. Citigroup uncovered $430 million in fraudulent advances and was fined $4.75 million by the SEC in 2018 for inadequate internal controls. Plaintiffs argue Citigroup hid critical information while profiting from interest on the advances.At the center of the legal battle is whether bondholders can sue Citigroup under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO), which allows for triple damages. Citigroup contended their claims were standard securities fraud allegations not suited for RICO and pointed to conflicting rulings in other federal appeals courts. However, the 11th Circuit found the plaintiffs' claims plausible, noting it defied belief that a sophisticated bank like Citigroup was unaware of the fraud. By refusing to hear the appeal, the Supreme Court leaves that ruling intact and allows the lawsuit to move forward.US Supreme Court rebuffs Citigroup appeal in lawsuit over Mexican oil company fraud | ReutersThis week, my column for Bloomberg looks at an obscure but telling tax provision: the so-called NASCAR tax break.Dozens of tax provisions expired at the end of 2025, and Congress will soon debate whether to revive them. Among these is the motorsports entertainment complex depreciation break, which allows racetrack owners to write off their facilities over just seven years—a timeline far shorter than that allowed for buildings like housing or wastewater plants. Initially enacted in 2004 as part of the American Jobs Creation Act, the break was a reaction to a Treasury reclassification effort that would have extended depreciation timelines for motorsports. Rather than accepting the change, Congress locked in the favorable treatment to preserve the status quo.Since then, the provision has been extended repeatedly, despite no clear policy rationale or economic justification. Unlike other tax incentives that at least attempt to stimulate broader economic development, the NASCAR break benefits a narrow group of wealthy owners in a lucrative, sponsor-heavy industry. The economic spillover is minimal, and unlike subsidies for sports stadiums—which are themselves of dubious value—this break doesn't even offer the illusion of local benefit.Its survival has more to do with inertia and lobbying than public interest. Letting it remain expired would save money and demonstrate that the tax code isn't permanently rigged in favor of politically connected sectors. More broadly, the column argues for a disciplined framework to evaluate all expiring provisions based on economic efficiency, equity, administrability, and demonstrated value. This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Episode 96 On December 31, 1986, just hours before Puerto Rico would ring in the New Year, flames tore through the luxurious Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino in San Juan. What began as a labor dispute escalated into one of the deadliest hotel fires in U.S. history, killing 97 people and injuring more than 140. In the aftermath, investigators would uncover arson, negligence, ignored safety recommendations, a chaotic evacuation, and a legal battle that reshaped fire codes across the hospitality industry. In this episode, we examine: The labor tensions and strike that set the stage for disaster The timeline of the fire and how it spread so rapidly How smoke and toxic gases became the primary killers Failures in life safety systems, egress, and emergency planning The investigation that quickly identified arson Criminal charges against arsonists Massive civil litigation and code reforms that followed Lessons learned in the context of other hotel/casino fires of the era The Crime to Burn Patreon - The Cult of Steve - is LIVE NOW! Go join and get all the unhinged you can handle. Click here to be sanctified.  Inner Sanctum Acknowledgments: Eternal gratitude to our Inner Sanctum patrons, Melanie Curtis, Jenny Mercer and Laura Pisciotta, for helping us bring light to the stories others would rather leave in the ashes. Listener discretion is advised. Background music by Not Notoriously Coordinated  Get your Crime to Burn Merch! https://crimetoburn.myspreadshop.com Please follow us on Instagram, X, Facebook, TikTok and Youtube for the latest news on this case. You can email us at crimetoburn@gmail.com We welcome any constructive feedback and would greatly appreciate a 5 star rating and review.  If you need a way to keep your canine contained, you can also support the show by purchasing a Pawious wireless dog fence using our affiliate link and use the code "crimetoburn" at checkout to receive 10% off. Pawious, because our dog Winston needed a radius, not a rap sheet.  Sources:  Video & Documentary Sources Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson Investigation. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, April 13, 2021. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9JyUjUoX_so Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson of 1986. Señor Onion's Archives. YouTube, October 21, 2024. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJsFLgxuDJ8 Government / Technical / Legal Reports Nelson, Harold E. “An Engineering Analysis of the Early Stages of Fire Development — The Fire at the Dupont Plaza Hotel and Casino — December 31, 1986.” NBSIR 87-3560, National Bureau of Standards, Center for Fire Research, U.S. Department of Commerce, April 1987. Levy, Harold M. “The Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire Litigation: A Case Study in Cooperative Defense.” Alternatives to the High Cost of Litigation, Vol. 7, No. 12, December 1989, pp. 215–233. José Francisco Rivera-Lopez, Plaintiff, Appellant, v. United States of America, Defendant, Appellee. U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, 4 F.3d 982, September 15, 1993. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F3/4/982/525384/ (Note: First Circuit Local Rule 36.2(b)6 — Unpublished opinions may be cited only in related cases.) News & Contemporary Coverage (1987) “Teamsters Dispute with Dupont Plaza Dates Back Four Months.” UPI Archives, January 13, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/13/Teamsters-dispute-with-Dupont-Plaza-dates-back-four-months/7070215305413/ Brossy, Julie. “A Dupont Plaza Bar Boy Was Charged Today With…” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/A-Dupont-Plaza-bar-boy-was-charged-today-with/8362537598800/ Hernandez, Moises. “Suspect in Hotel Fire Was Honored for Saving ‘Many Lives.'” UPI Archives, January 14, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/01/14/Suspect-in-hotel-fire-was-honored-for-saving-many-lives/2708537598800/ Gaulin, Edward J. “Defendants Plead Guilty in Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” UPI Archives, April 24, 1987. https://www.upi.com/Archives/1987/04/24/Defendants-plead-guilty-in-Dupont-Plaza-Hotel-fire/8801546235200/ Wilentz, Amy. “A New Year We'll Never Forget.” TIME, January 12, 1987. https://time.com/archive/6708028/a-new-year-well-never-forget/ Features, Retrospectives & Later Reporting Tepfer, Daniel. “A Vacation in Paradise Turns into Fiery Hell.” CTPost, Updated December 30, 2011. https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/a-vacation-in-paradise-turns-into-fiery-hell-2432149.php Reference / Encyclopedia & Summary Sources Dewey, Joseph. “Dupont Plaza Hotel Fire.” EBSCO Knowledge Advantage Research Starters, 2022. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/law/dupont-plaza-hotel-fire “Dupont Plaza Hotel Arson.” Grokipedia. https://grokipedia.com/page/Dupont_Plaza_Hotel_arson

Activities at Native organizations and a tribal college in Minneapolis, Minn., were canceled after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shot a woman Wednesday morning in the city. The Minneapolis American Indian Center canceled its Wednesday night programs due to community safety concerns and ICE activity in the neighborhood. The Red Lake Nation College, the Red Lake Nation Embassy, and the tribe's wellness center in Minneapolis closed Wednesday, and are expected to be closed for the rest of the week due to due the incident. MIGIZI, which supports Native youth in the Twin Cities, also canceled its programming. Tribes are expressing concerns about the incident and the safety of Native community members living in the Twin Cities. The Red Lake Tribal Council is urging its citizens to be careful, and to avoid ICE and other federal agents. The council released a two-page written message Wednesday, outlining concerns, which includes asking tribal members to report any interactions with ICE to the tribe's council or embassy. The Fond du Lac Band of Lake Superior Chippewa also raised concerns in a written message to its community about the safety of tribal members living in the Twin Cities. Robert Pilot is the host of Native Roots Radio based in the Twin Cities. He says the Native community is feeling the impacts of the shooting. “The reaction I’ve seen with the Native community is been just a gasp of what’s happened. 75,000 Native Americans live in Minneapolis (Twin Cities area). In that area of the shooting, there’s a very high percentage of Native Americans that live in that community, and they feel their community is being attacked by the federal government.” Pilot says members of the Native community are standing with their allies and took part in demonstrations against ICE on Wednesday in the area of the shooting. “There was a woman Native singer group that sang and it’s all about the healing. And I think the community, especially that community really knows that the Native community is really involved and really vetted into everything that happens there, happens to them. It was only a very short blocks away from the murder of George Floyd and that community is so scarred, but we have a resilience and our Native community is there and was there and is there and will still be there … we also are a big part of the community. And we want people to be safe, but we also want to be heard and be out there and support our community too, because this is our community too and all of Turtle Island is our community.” The woman killed was identified as 37-year-old Renee Good. The Trump administration is justifying the shooting, while the city's mayor disputes that and is demanding ICE leave Minneapolis. The Sandra Day O'Connor U.S. Courthouse in Phoenix, Ariz. (Photo: Gabriel Pietrorazio / KJZZ) A three-judge panel in Phoenix, Ariz., heard arguments on Wednesday over continuing a court-ordered injunction blocking a controversial land exchange. As KJZZ's Gabriel Pietrorazio reports, the land swap would result in a copper mining operation that is estimated to create a two-mile-wide crater, devouring an Apache holy site. It's been 140 days since the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals delayed a land swap first approved by Congress more than a decade ago. According to the 2015 law, 2,400 acres of Tonto National Forest must be turned over to Resolution Copper within 60 days of a final environmental impact statement being published, which happened in June. Plaintiffs in three different cases include the Arizona Mining Reform Coalition, San Carlos Apache Tribe, and a group of Apache women and girls. Defendants asked for the injunction to be lifted, which could lead to an immediate public land transfer. The judges did not say when their decision will be made. Get National Native News delivered to your inbox daily. Sign up for our daily newsletter today. Download our NV1 Android or iOs App for breaking news alerts. Check out the latest episode of Native America Calling Thursday, January 8, 2026 — New post office rule is among potential hurdles for Native voters

In the case of Jane Doe v. Leon Black (1:23-cv-06418-JGLC), the parties have submitted a joint letter regarding a discovery dispute over Defendant Leon Black's request to quash or modify deposition subpoenas. These subpoenas are intended for three of Mr. Black's attorneys and his wife. The request was made pursuant to Rule 4(k) of Judge Clarke's Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases.Defendant has requested an informal conference to address the matter, as provided under Rule 4(k). However, Plaintiff does not agree that such a conference is necessary. This disagreement highlights a procedural conflict regarding how to proceed with resolving the subpoena dispute.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.602764.166.0.pdfBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

Plaintiffs have filed suit in Chicago claiming that the McRib sandwich from McDonald's contains no actual pork rib meat - which they claim McDonald's misled them into believing. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

This Day in Legal History: Nixon's PlumbersOn January 7, 1972, President Richard Nixon announced the formation of a special unit within the White House to investigate and prevent leaks of classified information, which would eventually evolve into the so-called “Plumbers” unit. This decision followed the publication of the Pentagon Papers by Daniel Ellsberg in 1971, which deeply embarrassed the Nixon administration. Although the formal establishment of the Plumbers occurred in July 1971, Nixon's January 7 remarks to his aides marked a turning point in the administration's shift toward covert activity to manage political threats.The Plumbers were tasked with stopping or punishing perceived enemies of the administration. This group would go on to commit the break-in at the office of Ellsberg's psychiatrist, and many of its members were later involved in the June 1972 burglary of the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate complex—an event that ultimately unraveled Nixon's presidency. The actions undertaken by the Plumbers and their associates triggered investigations into abuse of executive power, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice.This date is significant in legal history because it underscores the dangers of unchecked executive authority and the use of government resources for political ends. The legal fallout from these events led to reforms in campaign finance, surveillance, and oversight of executive conduct, including the passage of the Ethics in Government Act and the strengthening of the Freedom of Information Act.Nicolás Maduro's arraignment in a U.S. federal court marks a rare and complex legal confrontation over the prosecution of a sitting foreign leader. Charged with narco-terrorism and drug trafficking, Maduro pleaded not guilty and asserted he remains Venezuela's legitimate president. His defense hinges on two main arguments: a claim of head-of-state immunity under international law and an allegation that he was unlawfully abducted by the U.S. military. The U.S. government counters that Maduro lost legitimacy after a disputed 2018 election and is not entitled to immunity.Legal scholars suggest that immunity claims in criminal cases are uncommon but not unprecedented. Former Panamanian leader Manuel Noriega attempted a similar defense, which failed, though he never held the official title of president. U.S. courts have dismissed civil suits against sitting leaders based on State Department recognition, but criminal immunity has a narrower scope. The court will also examine whether Maduro's alleged actions were part of his official duties—a critical factor in determining immunity.Even if immunity is denied, prosecutors may still face challenges proving Maduro's direct involvement in the conspiracy. Analysts note the indictment lacks strong ties between Maduro and specific terrorist or trafficking acts, though the Justice Department may be withholding key evidence. The defense is expected to argue aggressively that Maduro's arrest violated international law, echoing arguments rejected in the Noriega case.Maduro's immunity claim tests US power to prosecute foreign leaders | ReutersNick Reiner, the 32-year-old son of slain filmmaker Rob Reiner, is scheduled to enter a plea this Wednesday to two counts of first-degree murder in the fatal stabbings of his parents. His initial court appearance in December was postponed at his defense attorney's request, citing complex legal issues. Rob Reiner, 78, and Michele Reiner, 70, were found dead in their Los Angeles home on December 14, both having suffered multiple stab wounds. The killings, which occurred just hours before a planned event with the Obamas, shocked both Hollywood and political communities where Rob Reiner had long been influential.Prosecutors have not yet announced whether they will seek the death penalty, though capital punishment is currently under a moratorium in California. The case has drawn intense public scrutiny, especially after reports that Nick argued with his parents at a holiday party the night before their deaths. He was later found and arrested near a downtown park.Nick Reiner, who lived in a guest house on the property, has a well-documented history of drug addiction and homelessness. His struggles formed the basis of the 2015 film Being Charlie, which he co-wrote with his father. Rob Reiner, known for his role as “Meathead” in All in the Family and for directing beloved films like The Princess Bride and A Few Good Men, was a towering figure in both entertainment and Democratic politics. Michele Reiner was a producer and former photographer known for her 1980s portrait of Donald Trump. The motive behind the killings remains unclear.Son of slain Hollywood filmmaker Rob Reiner due back in court | ReutersA panel of judges on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals appeared doubtful of Meta Platforms' effort to dismiss over 2,200 lawsuits alleging that its platforms—along with those of Snapchat, YouTube, and TikTok—were intentionally designed to be addictive to young users. At the heart of the appeal is whether Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act shields these companies from liability for harm allegedly caused by their platform designs, not just user content.The judges questioned whether it was premature to consider the companies' immunity claims at this stage, given that the underlying cases are still in early litigation. They noted that most appeals occur only after a final judgment has been issued. Meta's attorney argued that defending such massive litigation now, without immunity protection, would be an undue burden. However, the panel suggested the district judge—Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers—had left the door open to revisiting Section 230 defenses later in the process.The lawsuits, brought by states, municipalities, school districts, and individuals, claim the platforms contributed to rising youth mental health issues like depression and body image disorders. The plaintiffs argue these are not content-related claims but rather focus on harmful platform features that fall outside Section 230 protections.Judge Jacqueline Nguyen pointed out that the language of Section 230 doesn't clearly grant the sweeping immunity Meta is claiming. Other judges on the panel, appointed by both Republican and Democratic presidents, also showed skepticism toward the broad interpretation of immunity being asserted by the companies.US appeals court appears skeptical of Meta, social media companies' bid to cut off addiction lawsuits | ReutersSeveral major class action lawsuits with billions of dollars at stake are set for key appellate decisions in 2026, targeting high-profile companies across tech, entertainment, sports, and real estate. In one case, Live Nation is appealing a ruling that certified a nationwide class action accusing it of inflating ticket prices over 15 years for events at major venues, involving over 400 million ticket sales.Apple is also facing renewed scrutiny as consumers seek to reinstate a class action alleging its App Store rules created a monopoly, leading to $20 billion in overcharges. A lower court had decertified the class of nearly 200 million customers, but the 9th Circuit has agreed to review that decision.Meanwhile, the NCAA is defending a historic $2.8 billion settlement compensating college athletes for past use of their name, image, and likeness. Although the deal received widespread support, appeals have temporarily delayed payments to affected athletes.The NFL is facing a critical appeal after a $4.7 billion jury verdict over its “Sunday Ticket” broadcast package was thrown out last year. Consumers and businesses want that verdict reinstated, arguing the NFL monopolized out-of-market game access.In the hotel sector, the 3rd Circuit will decide whether to revive claims that Atlantic City resorts, including Caesars and MGM, colluded on room prices using algorithmic pricing software—similar to claims already dismissed in a Las Vegas case now potentially heading to the U.S. Supreme Court.Finally, the 8th Circuit will examine objections to settlements totaling over $668 million in a class action accusing real estate firms, including Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway-owned HomeServices, of fixing commission rates nationwide. Plaintiffs say the deals are fair; critics argue they don't go far enough.Billions in balance for US companies fighting class action appeals in 2026 | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Fundamental Laws of 1906On December 30, 1905, Tsar Nicholas II signed the “Fundamental Laws of 1906,” marking a pivotal moment in the Russian Empire's struggle between autocracy and constitutionalism. This act came in response to the Revolution of 1905, a period of mass unrest fueled by political repression, economic hardship, and a humiliating defeat in the Russo-Japanese War. The October Manifesto, issued two months earlier, had promised the establishment of a legislative Duma and the expansion of civil liberties. However, the Fundamental Laws, signed in December, revealed the Tsar's intention to retain ultimate authority despite these concessions.The document laid out a framework for governance, establishing a bicameral legislature with the Duma as its lower house, but Article 4 made clear that “the All-Russian Emperor possesses the supreme autocratic power.” This meant that, legally, any legislative progress remained subordinate to the Tsar's will. The laws also granted the Tsar control over the military, foreign policy, and the ability to dissolve the Duma at his discretion.While the Fundamental Laws introduced formal legal structures and acknowledged the existence of limited civil rights, they were largely symbolic gestures rather than meaningful reforms. Instead of curbing autocratic rule, the laws codified it, cloaking absolute monarchy in the appearance of legality. This duality deepened public dissatisfaction and political fragmentation.Rather than stabilizing the empire, the signing of the Fundamental Laws sowed further distrust in the regime and highlighted the Tsar's unwillingness to relinquish power. These contradictions contributed to the failure of the Duma system and fueled revolutionary momentum that would ultimately culminate in the revolutions of 1917.The Trump administration reached an agreement to review certain NIH grant applications that had been stalled or rejected amid a broader legal challenge over cuts to diversity-related research funding. The agreement followed a federal court ruling in Boston that found the NIH acted unlawfully when it canceled grants based on their perceived ties to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Though the Supreme Court later paused part of that ruling and shifted some aspects of the litigation to a court specializing in monetary claims, the review process for future NIH funding remained in legal limbo.Under the new agreement, the NIH will re-evaluate previously frozen or withdrawn grant applications, though it is not required to fund any specific proposals. Plaintiffs in the case, including researchers and several Democratic-led states, argued that the impacted studies—focusing on topics like HIV prevention, LGBTQ health, Alzheimer's, and sexual violence—serve vital public health needs.One of the plaintiffs, University of New Mexico postdoctoral researcher Nikki Maphis, said the agreement allows important scientific work to resume after what she described as an “arbitrary and destructive freeze.” The underlying NIH policy change, which cut funding for projects deemed to reflect ideological rather than scientific priorities, remains contested. A prior ruling blocking the policy is still under appeal by the Department of Health and Human Services.Trump administration agrees to review stalled NIH research grants after lawsuit | ReutersThe Trump administration's aggressive defunding of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) has pushed the agency to the brink of collapse, jeopardizing one of the few federal institutions explicitly designed to protect everyday Americans from financial harm. Created in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, the CFPB has long served as a crucial recourse for people facing predatory lending, credit reporting errors, identity theft, and financial discrimination. The agency has helped return more than $21 billion to consumers since its founding. And yet, under President Trump's second term, it's being systematically dismantled—through funding cuts, legal challenges, and staffing reductions—with the administration openly declaring its intent to shut the agency down.In the absence of the CFPB, those wronged by financial institutions—like Bianca Jones, who battled a credit reporting error that nearly cost her a home, or Morgan Smith, who turned to the agency after being targeted by identity theft—may find themselves with nowhere to turn. The administration claims the CFPB promotes a political agenda, but the result is fewer protections for those already vulnerable. Rules around medical debt, overdraft fees, credit card terms, and mortgage lending have been gutted. Investigations have been shelved. Enforcement is evaporating.Critics argue that other regulators can fill the gap, but the CFPB was created because no one else was doing the job. Without it, financial institutions are more likely to abuse their power with impunity.You should ask yourself: who benefits when a consumer watchdog is taken offline? Because it certainly isn't the teachers, the single parents, the sick, or the struggling borrowers trying to make sense of a system stacked against them. It's the companies who'd rather not answer for what they do in the dark.Trump's funding cuts put America's consumer watchdog on the brink of collapse | ReutersA federal appeals court ruled that it cannot hear Amazon's constitutional challenge to the structure of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), deepening a circuit split on the issue and increasing the likelihood of U.S. Supreme Court review. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals found that Amazon's case stemmed from a labor dispute and was therefore barred by the Norris-LaGuardia Act, which prohibits courts from intervening in active labor disputes. Amazon had filed the lawsuit to halt an NLRB case claiming it was a joint employer of unionized drivers working for a subcontractor and therefore obligated to bargain with their union.Amazon's broader claim—that the NLRB's structure is unconstitutional because its board members and judges are protected from at-will removal—has gained traction elsewhere. The 5th Circuit, in a recent case involving Elon Musk's SpaceX, ruled that such protections are unlawful and allowed a similar challenge to proceed. But the 9th Circuit firmly disagreed, emphasizing that courts should not interfere with labor board proceedings, regardless of the constitutional claims involved.This ruling aligns with a 3rd Circuit decision and stands in direct conflict with the 5th Circuit, setting the stage for a high-stakes resolution by the Supreme Court. Importantly, the 9th Circuit's ruling doesn't completely shut the door on such challenges—employers can still raise constitutional objections in NLRB proceedings and appeal after the fact. But for now, Amazon and other companies must make their case through the channels Congress established for resolving labor disputes.US court says it can't hear Amazon's NLRB challenge, deepening circuit split | ReutersA Utah judge has granted the release of most of the transcript and audio from a closed hearing in the high-profile case involving the fatal shooting of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. The hearing, held in October, addressed courtroom safety measures for the accused, Tyler Robinson, who is charged with aggravated murder and other serious offenses. Prosecutors allege Robinson fired a single fatal shot from a rooftop during a university event where Kirk was speaking, and they intend to seek the death penalty.Judge Tony Graf ruled that only about one page of the 80-page transcript would remain redacted, primarily for safety and security reasons. He also clarified that media organizations do not need special legal status to cover the proceedings, rejecting a request that would have guaranteed them advance notice of any future attempts to close hearings.Graf has already decided that Robinson can appear in civilian clothing but must remain physically restrained in court. However, media outlets are prohibited from photographing or filming his restraints, as defense attorneys argued such images could bias potential jurors. A hearing set for February will address whether cameras will be allowed in the courtroom at all.Kirk's death, which occurred during a campus debate, triggered widespread condemnation of political violence from across the ideological spectrum.Judge grants release of redacted transcript of Charlie Kirk case hearing | ReutersAs 2025 winds down, my Bloomberg column this week is a year-end piece reflecting not just on what was written, but on which ideas still resonate because the problems they address remain unresolved. The lasting relevance of several pieces underscores how little has shifted in tax and policy debates. A July column urging states to break free from federal tax volatility feels even more urgent now, as states still cling to unstable baselines. Early in the year, hopes that efficiency rhetoric (read: DOGE) might close the tax gap faded, with political discomfort around auditing the wealthy preventing any meaningful change. April's look at the step-up in basis revealed how death, not borrowing, remains the biggest capital gains loophole—and one Congress left untouched in the 2025 tax law. A May column on IRS immigration enforcement gains new resonance as the crackdown deepens, pushing some immigrant workers further from voluntary compliance. And October's piece on Pung v. Isabella County remains live, with the Supreme Court set to decide whether fairness in tax foreclosures means market value or simply what the government collects.Each of these columns anticipated weather patterns we're now standing in—proof less of foresight and more of inertia. If 2026 brings more engagement, even without clear solutions, there's hope that next year's retrospective won't feel like a reprint with new dates.Read the 5 Most Relevant Technically Speaking Columns of 2025 This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Federal Reserve ActOn December 23, 1913, President Woodrow Wilson signed the Federal Reserve Act into law, creating the Federal Reserve System, the central banking system of the United States. The law was the culmination of decades of debate over banking reform, intensified by the financial panic of 1907. The Act aimed to provide the country with a safer, more flexible, and more stable monetary and financial system. It established twelve regional Federal Reserve Banks overseen by a central Board in Washington, D.C., striking a balance between public oversight and private banking interests.The Federal Reserve was given key powers, including the ability to issue Federal Reserve Notes (now the dominant form of U.S. currency), regulate banks, and serve as a lender of last resort during financial crises. This marked a significant shift from the fragmented and largely unregulated banking environment of the 19th century.Critics feared it concentrated too much financial power in the hands of a few, while supporters believed it brought necessary structure and national oversight. Over the decades, the Fed's role expanded, especially during the Great Depression, World War II, and more recently the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic. The creation of the Fed also represented a broader legal evolution in how the federal government engaged with economic policy.A coalition of 21 Democratic-led states and the District of Columbia has filed a lawsuit in federal court in Oregon to prevent the Trump administration from defunding the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB). The states argue that the administration's decision to stop requesting funds from the Federal Reserve is unlawful and undermines Congress's constitutional authority. Since returning to office in January, President Trump has taken steps to dismantle the CFPB, including appointing his budget director, Russell Vought, as acting head and halting most agency operations.The CFPB was created in 2011 to safeguard consumers in the financial sector and has recovered over $21 billion for Americans. It is uniquely funded directly by the Federal Reserve rather than through Congressional appropriations. The administration claims the Dodd-Frank Act requires the CFPB's funding to come from the Fed's combined earnings, which they argue are unavailable due to the Fed operating at a loss since 2022.The lawsuit highlights that the CFPB is legally required to process consumer complaints from states, and without funding, it cannot fulfill this duty. Plaintiffs also contend that the administration's move violates the separation of powers by interfering with a congressionally established funding mechanism. Additional lawsuits from a federal employee union and nonprofits are pending in other courts, also seeking to compel the agency to resume funding requests.Democratic-led states sue to block US consumer watchdog's defunding under Trump | ReutersA new push by the Trump administration to challenge corporate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) faces steep legal hurdles. Under EEOC Chair Andrea Lucas, the agency is shifting toward what she calls a more “conservative view of civil rights,” focusing on potential discrimination against white men. Lucas has announced plans to investigate corporate DEI policies and pursue enforcement where race- or sex-based decisions are suspected.However, legal experts emphasize that proving such claims is difficult. Discrimination cases require clear evidence that someone was denied a job or benefit specifically because of their race or sex, not just because they were part of a changing applicant pool. Critics argue that the administration's narrative misunderstands the legal and practical realities of workplace diversity, which is often designed to prevent discrimination, not perpetuate it.Despite aggressive executive orders targeting DEI, many companies are maintaining or quietly adjusting their programs to remain compliant. Legal audits and program rebranding are common, especially in industries like automotive. DEI advocates point out that the business case for inclusion remains strong, as companies see diverse teams as essential to long-term success.Ultimately, while the administration's rhetoric may galvanize parts of its base, experts say turning that rhetoric into enforceable legal action will be difficult under existing anti-discrimination laws.Trump's anti-corporate DEI campaign faces high legal hurdles | ReutersMercedes-Benz has agreed to pay $120 million to settle environmental and consumer protection claims brought by multiple U.S. states over its use of emissions-cheating software in certain diesel vehicles. The settlement resolves the remaining U.S. legal actions tied to the broader Dieselgate scandal, which has affected several automakers. The claims focused on Mercedes' BlueTEC diesel models, which were previously marketed as especially clean and advanced.As part of the agreement, Mercedes will continue retrofitting affected vehicles with approved emissions software. These additional updates are expected to cost the company tens of millions more. However, the company stated that its financial results won't be impacted, as it had already set aside sufficient funds to cover the settlement and associated costs.Mercedes reaches $120 million settlement with US states over emissions scandal | ReutersIn my column for Bloomberg this week, I argue that the IRS has a rare opportunity to repair its deeply flawed Voluntary Disclosure Program (VDP), which has become so punitive and complex that it actively discourages taxpayers from coming forward. While the program is supposed to help bring people back into compliance, its current structure demands that taxpayers essentially confess to wrongdoing—sometimes criminal—in a sworn statement, without any assurance the IRS will even consider their disclosure.Recent proposed reforms introduce a more structured penalty system and eliminate the notorious “willfulness checkbox” from Form 14457, a small but significant change that previously forced taxpayers to admit to criminal conduct just to apply. Still, the process remains risky. The IRS continues to require extensive narratives of past noncompliance, and for taxpayers with crypto assets, the demands are even greater: wallet addresses, transaction hashes, and mixer use must all be disclosed upfront. That level of technical and legal exposure could deter even well-meaning taxpayers.I argue the IRS must go further. It should offer flexible payment options—like installment agreements or offers in compromise—and abandon its rigid “pay-in-full” approach. It should also adopt a tiered penalty framework that accounts for intent, scale, and the evolving complexity of assets like cryptocurrency. Finally, the IRS needs to delay the most invasive digital asset reporting until after a taxpayer has been preliminarily accepted into the program, rather than forcing exhaustive disclosures at the outset.Without deeper changes, the VDP risks continuing as a trapdoor rather than a lifeline—one that punishes honesty and rewards silence. The current moment of public review is the best chance to realign the program with its original purpose: restoring compliance, not burying it.The IRS Has a Chance to Fix Its Voluntary Disclosure Program This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

This Day in Legal History: Bernhard GoetzOn this day in legal history, December 22, 1984, Bernhard Goetz shot and wounded four young Black men—Troy Canty, Barry Allen, Darrell Cabey, and James Ramseur—on a New York City subway train. Goetz, who was white, claimed the men had attempted to rob him and that he acted in self-defense. The case quickly became a national sensation, exposing deep racial fault lines in public discourse and in the justice system. Supporters hailed Goetz as a vigilante hero responding to unchecked urban crime, while critics denounced his actions as racially motivated violence that reinforced systemic bias.Goetz fled the scene but turned himself in nine days later. During the investigation, he told police that he had intended to kill the men and expressed explicitly racist sentiments, calling them “savages.” Despite this, a grand jury initially refused to indict him for attempted murder, charging him only with criminal possession of a weapon. After public outcry, a second grand jury indicted him on multiple counts, including attempted murder and assault. In his 1987 trial, however, Goetz was acquitted of all charges except for illegal firearms possession.The verdict underscored how race and fear influenced perceptions of self-defense and victimhood. The jury accepted Goetz's narrative of fear despite his own admission of intent and inflammatory language. The case highlighted the elasticity of self-defense laws, especially when invoked by white defendants against Black victims. It also foreshadowed later debates in high-profile cases where racial bias intersected with claims of justified force. Goetz ultimately served just over eight months in jail. Darrell Cabey, left paralyzed by the shooting, later won a $43 million civil judgment against him—a sum Goetz claimed he could never pay. The case remains a stark example of how legal standards of justification can mask broader social inequities.President Trump is preparing to expand immigration enforcement in 2026 with a significant boost in funding and more aggressive tactics, including a renewed focus on workplace raids. Despite growing political backlash, Trump plans to hire thousands of new agents, expand detention centers, and partner with private companies to track undocumented immigrants. His administration has already deployed federal agents to major cities, sparking protests over the use of tear gas, extrajudicial tactics, and the detention of U.S. citizens.ICE and Border Patrol are set to receive $170 billion through 2029, a massive increase over their current annual budgets. Miami recently elected its first Democratic mayor in decades, with voters citing Trump's immigration policies as a motivating factor. While Trump continues to frame his crackdown as targeting criminals, government data shows a large portion of recent ICE arrests have involved individuals with no criminal record beyond immigration violations.Trump has also moved to strip temporary protections from hundreds of thousands of immigrants and aims to deport one million people annually, although he's likely to fall short of that target. Legal immigrants haven't been spared either—some have been detained during green card interviews or had their naturalization ceremonies interrupted. The administration's new workplace-focused approach could strain the economy, especially in industries reliant on immigrant labor, raising concerns about inflation and employer backlash.Critics argue the crackdown undermines due process and civil liberties, militarizes communities, and disproportionately targets people of color. As enforcement expands, business groups may be forced to respond more vocally, especially if employer raids disrupt operations. Trump's overall approval on immigration has dropped sharply since March, suggesting growing public discomfort with the scope and style of enforcement.Trump set to expand immigration crackdown in 2026 despite brewing backlash | ReutersA federal judge has blocked the Trump administration from implementing new restrictions on over $3 billion in federal grants that support housing and services for homeless individuals. U.S. District Judge Mary McElroy issued a preliminary injunction after finding that the Department of Housing and Urban Development's (HUD) planned changes to the Continuum of Care program likely violated the McKinney-Vento Act, which mandates a focus on stable, permanent housing for vulnerable populations.The lawsuit was brought by 20 mostly Democratic-led states, Washington, D.C., and a coalition of nonprofits and local governments. Plaintiffs argued that HUD's proposed changes would endanger the housing of around 170,000 people, including families, veterans, and survivors of domestic violence—particularly concerning as winter sets in. McElroy, a Trump appointee, emphasized the public interest in upholding lawful agency action and maintaining stability for at-risk groups.The Trump administration had sought to move away from the long-standing “housing-first” model, which provides housing without preconditions like sobriety or employment, and instead proposed work requirements and transitional housing. HUD also attempted to ban funding for services related to diversity, gender identity, and abortion, while aligning programs with its immigration enforcement efforts.Critics viewed the move as a politically motivated attempt to reshape federal homelessness policy, while the judge noted HUD's last-minute changes to its own policy appeared strategic and disruptive to legal proceedings. Despite the ruling, HUD stated it remains committed to reforming the program “in accordance with the law.”US judge blocks Trump administration from altering homelessness funding conditions | ReutersDavid O'Keefe, a retired Manhattan prosecutor, has filed a federal lawsuit against New York City and Brookfield Properties, claiming he was unlawfully arrested while protesting outside the Manhattan offices of the law firm Skadden Arps. The protest took place in April 2025 in a privately owned public space (POPS), where O'Keefe staged a solo demonstration criticizing Skadden's agreement to provide $100 million in pro bono legal services for initiatives backed by President Donald Trump. He alleged the firm's involvement threatened the rule of law.According to the complaint, O'Keefe was arrested for trespassing after refusing to leave the plaza, detained for 90 minutes, and later had the charge dismissed. His lawsuit seeks not only damages but also a court ruling affirming that First Amendment rights apply in POPS—publicly accessible spaces maintained by private owners in exchange for zoning benefits. His legal team argues the arrest violated his constitutional rights and aims to clarify protections for protest in such hybrid public-private areas.Skadden is not named as a defendant and has not commented. The firm was one of several major law firms that agreed to work with the Trump administration following the president's efforts to pressure the legal industry over prior political affiliations and diversity practices. A photo included in the suit shows O'Keefe holding a sign labeling Skadden “Trump's $100 million lap dog.”Ex-prosecutor sues over arrest while protesting law firm Skadden's deal with Trump | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Felix Gonzalez, founder & CEO of Archer Law, tells the story of leaving high-pressure litigation to build a 20-year real estate law practice in Chicago — a practice that has weathered market crashes, protected investors, and helped communities. In this episode of People Not Titles, Felix shares real legal lessons, practical advice for agents/investors/landlords, and an urgent case for preparation and integrity in real estate.From Litigator to Legacy — How Felix Gonzalez Built a 20-Year Chicago Real Estate Law PracticeFull episode summaryJoin host Steve Kaempf and returning guest Felix Gonzalez as they unpack a career built on adaptability, deep client service, and continuous learning. Felix covers his start in personal-injury and insurance defense, the pivot to transactional real estate, surviving the 2006–2008 market collapse, building Archer Law into a legacy practice, and the modern legal realities for Chicago investors and landlords — from AS-IS transactions to concealed defect claims and eviction work. He also discusses his work training houses of worship on security and his philosophy of “peace through strength.”Key takeaways (actionable for agents, investors & landlords):• Why you should consult an attorney before buying investment properties.• How “AS-IS” contracts really work — what buyers can (and can't) request after inspection.• Practical landlord onboarding: background checks, IDs, leases, and documentation to avoid costly evictions.• How market downturns shift transactional work into litigation — diversify your legal strategy.• Warning signs of concealed defects (mold, undisclosed repairs) and how to preserve claims.• Why houses of worship need a security plan and how to start one responsibly.Resources & links:→ Website — Archer Law: https://www.archerlaw.com→ Full podcast hub — People, Not Titles: https://www.peoplenottitles.com→ Sponsored by — Land Trust Title Services→ Connect with the show:→ Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/peoplenotti...Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/peoplenottitlesTwitter: https://twitter.com/sjkaempfSpotify: https://open.spotify.com/show/1uu5kTv...If you found value in this episode:✅ Like the video — it helps others find it.✅ Subscribe for weekly interviews with real estate leaders.✅ Comment: What legal tip from Felix will you use next? (Best comments pinned.)00:00:00 — Introduction & Guest Welcome00:01:09 — Felix's Early Legal Career00:02:25 — Transition to Plaintiff's Work & Real Estate00:04:10 — Self-Awareness & Career Change00:06:13 — Litigation vs Transactional Real Estate Law00:08:11 — Early Real Estate Practice & Technology00:08:49 — Building Archer Law & Career Evolution00:10:19 — Adapting to Market Changes00:12:00 — Philosophy of Continuous Learning00:14:13 — Advice for Young People & Aspiring Attorneys00:17:07 — Knowledge vs Wisdom & Influences00:19:05 — Felix's Approach to Clients & Problem Solving00:21:52 — Balancing Attorney Work & Entrepreneurship00:23:08 — Impact of Downturns & Diversification00:25:28 — Current Trends: Investors & Evictions00:27:50 — Challenges for Small Landlords00:29:15 — Best Practices for Landlords00:32:06 — Legal Prep for New Investors00:33:24 — Handling “AS-IS” Real Estate Transactions00:41:17 — Post-Closing Issues & Litigation00:44:41 — Attorney Conflicts & Litigation Referrals00:46:16 — Firearms Training & Church Security Work00:49:18 — Philosophy: Peace Through Strength00:51:21 — Wrap-Up & Closing#ChicagoRealEstate #RealEstateLaw #EvictionHelp #ASISExplained #LandlordTips #InvestorAdvice #ArcherLaw #PeopleNotTitles #PropertyLaw #HomeBuyingTips

This Day in Legal History: Project Blue Book EndsOn this day in legal history, December 17, 1969, the U.S. Air Force officially terminated Project Blue Book, its two-decade-long investigation into unidentified flying objects (UFOs). Launched in 1952 during a peak in UFO sightings and Cold War anxiety, Project Blue Book reviewed over 12,000 reports of aerial phenomena. The Air Force concluded that most sightings could be explained by natural phenomena, aircraft, or hoaxes, and found no evidence of extraterrestrial activity or threats to national security. With its closure, the government effectively stepped back from public-facing UFO investigations, although some believe military interest continued behind closed doors.Legally, the end of Project Blue Book catalyzed decades of litigation and Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, as citizens, journalists, and researchers sought access to government-held UFO data. The skeptical legal view has often emphasized that classified information typically relates to military technology or surveillance programs, not alien spacecraft. Despite popular culture's fixation on extraterrestrials, courts have routinely deferred to executive branch claims of national security in resisting full transparency.While the project's conclusion did not trigger direct legislation, it helped shape a legal culture around government secrecy, classification standards, and the public's right to know. It also fueled persistent legal tension between conspiratorial narratives and evidentiary standards. As UFOs—now reframed as “unidentified anomalous phenomena” (UAPs)—have resurfaced in congressional hearings in recent years, Blue Book remains a touchstone for the limits of disclosure and the enduring gap between public curiosity and provable claims.Skepticism remains warranted: decades later, no clear evidence has emerged to support the claim of extraterrestrial contact—despite tens of thousands of pages released and re-litigated under FOIA.U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston expressed openness to again striking down a Trump policy that allows for the rapid deportation of migrants to third countries without meaningful notice or an opportunity to raise fears of persecution or torture. The case challenges Department of Homeland Security (DHS) policies that permit deportation to countries other than a migrant's country of origin, often with as little as six hours' notice. Judge Murphy had previously issued an injunction in April to halt such deportations, arguing they violated due process, but the Supreme Court paused that order in June via its “shadow docket” without providing detailed reasoning.Despite acknowledging the likely involvement of the Supreme Court again, Murphy indicated that he may still rule on the merits of the case, though any decision would likely be temporarily stayed. The lawsuit, a class action, targets a DHS memo from March and guidance from July that permits deportations based on “credible” diplomatic assurances. Plaintiffs argue these policies fall short of constitutional protections, while the Justice Department insists migrants already have opportunities to raise objections during proceedings. The judge criticized the lack of clarity from the Supreme Court's earlier intervention and emphasized the importance of due process in removal proceedings.US judge open to again striking down Trump policy on third-country deportations | ReutersA Trump-appointed federal appeals court judge has argued that constitutional rights do not extend to immigrants who entered the United States unlawfully, a position he laid out in a partial dissent in a Second Amendment case. Sixth Circuit Judge Amul Thapar agreed with upholding a federal ban on firearm possession by undocumented immigrants but rejected the majority's reasoning. Instead, he argued the case should have been resolved by declaring that only U.S. citizens are included in “the people” protected by the Constitution. Thapar relied heavily on the Constitution's preamble and an originalist reading of history, asserting that the Founders never intended constitutional protections to apply to non-citizens, especially those unlawfully present.The majority opinion rejected that framing, pointing to Supreme Court precedent recognizing that non-citizens who develop substantial connections to the country may invoke constitutional rights. Thapar went further, suggesting that even the First and Fourth Amendments were not originally meant to protect non-citizens. The case arose from a challenge by a Guatemalan national convicted of unlawfully possessing firearms, but Thapar's reasoning reached far beyond gun regulation. His dissent echoes arguments long advanced by the Trump administration and aligns with his status as a former Trump Supreme Court shortlist candidate.From my perspective, this is a racist, xenophobic, and profoundly ahistorical take that threatens to usher in a shameful new era of American jurisprudence. It reflects either a fundamental misunderstanding of constitutional law or a wanton, careerist obsequiousness to Trumpism, delivered with the unmistakable tone of someone auditioning for a Supreme Court seat while extolling the flavor of boot. Judge Thapar is an embarrassment to the bench.Judge Thapar's theory represents a fundamental shift away from the traditional understanding of constitutional rights as inherent and inalienable—that is, rights present in every individual that the government is bound to respect, not rights it doles out at its discretion. By asserting that non-citizens, especially those here unlawfully, are not part of “the people” and therefore not entitled to constitutional protections, Thapar effectively treats these rights as government-bestowed privileges rather than limits on state power–that should frighten citizens, as well.But if rights are inherent, as our legal tradition holds, and yet non-citizens don't possess them, the implication is clear: they are being denied not because of legal status, but because of a presumed inferiority. That's not a theory of constitutional law—it's a supremacist framework gussied up in originalist language.Trump-appointed judge argues US Constitution's rights do not extend to non-citizens | Reuters3-D animator Eric Ryder filed a copyright infringement lawsuit in California federal court against Disney and director James Cameron, alleging that the 2022 film Avatar: The Way of Water copied substantial elements from his science fiction story KRZ. Ryder claims he collaborated with Cameron's Lightstorm Entertainment in the late 1990s on developing a film based on KRZ, and that key features of Avatar 2—including anthropomorphic beings, a vast oceanic world, and an exploitative Earth corporation mining a moon called Europa—mirror those from his work.Ryder previously sued over the first Avatar film in 2011, but that case was dismissed when a California state court ruled Cameron had created Avatar before Ryder submitted his material. Ryder insists this new case is not an attempt to relitigate the past, but rather to address new alleged acts of copying specific to The Way of Water, such as the central plot point involving an animal-based substance that extends human life, which he says did not appear in the original Avatar.Ryder is seeking at least $500 million in damages and a court order to block the release of the upcoming Avatar 3: Fire and Ash. His lawyer described the alleged copying as “blatant and egregious.” Disney and Lightstorm have not yet commented publicly on the lawsuit.Disney, James Cameron sued for copyright infringement over ‘Avatar' | Reuters This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

A group of young Montanans are asking the state Supreme Court to overturn new laws that weaken the state's ability to regulate planet warming emissions, and exclude some fossil fuel projects from environmental review. This filing comes a year after they won a landmark ruling over Montana's constitutional right to a "clean and healthful environment."

A single sentence can change a career. We open with a real-world case: a shuttle driver on SFU property tells a flagger she's “unbelievably beautiful” and suggests modelling. Security documents the exchange, the university issues a campus ban, and the employer fires him. He then pushes for the complainant's identity under FOIPPA, arguing that the decision-makers needed complete, accurate information. We walk through why FOIPPA binds public bodies but not private companies, how section 28 actually works, and why the court said disclosure wasn't required when the driver admitted the key facts. Plus, we flag the sting in the tail: special costs when you sue the wrong parties.From there, the stakes rise. Mid-trial in Vancouver, a mother asks to relocate her eight-year-old to Thailand. The judge says no on best-interests grounds. She leaves anyway, hides her location, and starts a case abroad. We explain how habitual residence anchors jurisdiction, why the Hague Convention exists to stop jurisdiction shopping, and how credibility findings—false affidavits, financial misstatements—reshape custody, support, and costs. The practical takeaway is stark: unilateral moves during active proceedings invite severe legal consequences and can fracture future parenting arrangements.We close with the Lytton wildfire class action. Plaintiffs allege a passing train ignited the fire; the defendants point to onboard video, sensors, and clean inspection data. The court certifies the case, clarifying that the standard is some basis in fact, not proof. Timing, location near the tracks, tinderbox conditions, and a supportive expert opinion clear the threshold. Certification doesn't decide liability—it ensures a fair, efficient path to test common issues, expert evidence, and causation at trial.If you value clear, no-spin explanations of how law affects real people—from campus discipline and privacy to cross-border parenting and community-scale claims—follow the show, share it with a friend, and leave a review telling us which case challenged your assumptions.Follow this link for a transcript of the show and links to the cases discussed.

I am Rolf Claessen and together with my co-host Ken Suzan I am welcoming you to episode 169 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann, co-founder of my patent law firm Michalski Hüttermann & Partner and a true expert on the Unified Patent Court. He has written several books about the new system and we talk about all the things that plaintiffs and defendants can learn from the first decisions of the court and what they mean for strategic decisions of the parties involved. But before we jump into this very interesting interview, I have news for you! The US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is planning rule changes that would make it virtually impossible for third parties to challenge invalid patents before the patent office. Criticism has come from the EFF and other inventor rights advocates: the new rules would play into the hands of so-called non-practicing entities (NPEs), as those attacked would have few cost-effective ways to have questionable patents deleted. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reports a new record in international patent applications: in 2024, around 3.7 million patent applications were filed worldwide – an increase of 4.9% over the previous year. The main drivers were Asian countries (China alone accounted for 1.8 million), while demand for trademark protection has stabilized after the pandemic decline. US rapper Eminem is taking legal action in Australia against a company that sells swimwear under the name “Swim Shady.” He believes this infringes on his famous “Slim Shady” brand. The case illustrates that even humorous allusions to well-known brand names can lead to legal conflicts. A new ruling by the Unified Patent Court (UPC) demonstrates its cross-border impact. In “Fujifilm v. Kodak,” the local chamber in Mannheim issued an injunction that extends to the UK despite Brexit. The UPC confirmed its jurisdiction over the UK parts of a European patent, as the defendant Kodak is based in a UPC member state. A dispute over standard patents is looming at the EU level: the Legal Affairs Committee (JURI) of the European Parliament voted to take the European Commission to the European Court of Justice. The reason for this is the Commission’s controversial withdrawal of a draft regulation on the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). Parliament President Roberta Metsola is to decide by mid-November whether to file the lawsuit. In trademark law, USPTO Director Squires reported on October 31, 2025, that a new unit (“Trademark Registration Protection Office”) had removed approximately 61,000 invalid trademark applications from the registries. This cleanup of the backlog relieved the examining authority and accelerated the processing of legitimate applications. Now let's jump into the interview with Aloys Hüttermann: The Unified Patent Court Comes of Age – Insights from Prof. Aloys Hüttermann The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has moved from a long-discussed project to a living, breathing court system that already shapes patent enforcement in Europe. In a recent IP Fridays interview, Prof. Aloys Hüttermann – founder and equity partner at Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner and one of the earliest commentators on the UPC – shared his experiences from the first years of practice, as well as his view on how the UPC fits into the global patent litigation landscape. This article summarises the key points of that conversation and is meant as an accessible overview for in-house counsel, patent attorneys and business leaders who want to understand what the UPC means for their strategy. How Prof. Hüttermann Became “Mr. UPC” Prof. Hüttermann has been closely involved with the UPC for more than a decade. When it became clear, around 13 years ago, that the European project of a unified patent court and a unitary patent was finally going to happen, he recognised that this would fundamentally change patent enforcement in Europe. He started to follow the legislative and political developments in detail and went beyond mere observation. As author and editor of several books and a major commentary on the UPC, he helped shape the discussion around the new system. His first book on the UPC appeared in 2016 – years before the court finally opened its doors in 2023. What fascinated him from the beginning was the unique opportunity to witness the creation of an entirely new court system, to analyse how it would be built and, where possible, to contribute to its understanding and development. It was clear to him that this system would be a “game changer” for European patent enforcement. UPC in the Global Triangle: Europe, the US and China In practice, most international patent disputes revolve around three major regions: the UPC territory in Europe, the United States and China. Each of these regions has its own procedural culture, cost structure and strategic impact. From a territorial perspective, the UPC is particularly attractive because it can, under the right conditions, grant pan-European injunctions that cover a broad range of EU Member States with a single decision. This consolidation of enforcement is something national courts in Europe simply cannot offer. From a cost perspective, the UPC is significantly cheaper than US litigation, especially if one compares the cost of one UPC action with a bundle of separate national cases in large European markets. When viewed against the territorial reach and procedural speed, the “bang for the buck” is very compelling. China is again a different story. The sheer volume of cases there is enormous, with tens of thousands of patent infringement cases per year. Chinese courts are known for their speed; first-instance decisions within about a year are common. In this respect they resemble the UPC more than the US does. The UPC also aims at a roughly 12 to 15 month time frame for first-instance cases where validity is at issue. The US, by contrast, features extensive discovery, occasionally jury trials and often longer timelines. The procedural culture is very different. The UPC, like Chinese courts, operates without discovery in the US sense, which makes proceedings more focused on the written record and expert evidence that the parties present, and less on pre-trial disclosure battles. Whether a company chooses to litigate in the US, the UPC, China, or some combination of these forums will depend on where the key markets and assets are. However, in Prof. Hüttermann's view, once Europe is an important market, it is hard to justify ignoring the UPC. He expects the court's caseload and influence to grow strongly over the coming years. A Landmark UPC Case: Syngenta v. Sumitomo A particularly important case in which Prof. Hüttermann was involved is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo matter, concerning a composition patent. This case has become a landmark in UPC practice for several reasons. First, the Court of Appeal clarified a central point about the reach of UPC injunctions. It made clear that once infringement is established in one Member State, this will usually be sufficient to justify a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That confirmation gave patent owners confidence that the UPC can in fact deliver broad, cross-border relief in one go. Second, the facts of the case raised novel issues about evidence and territorial reach. The allegedly infringing product had been analysed based on a sample from the Czech Republic, which is not part of the UPC system. Later, the same product with the same name was marketed in Bulgaria, which is within UPC territory. The Court of Appeal held that the earlier analysis of the Czech sample could be relied on for enforcement in Bulgaria. This showed that evidence from outside the UPC territory can be sufficient, as long as it is properly linked to the products marketed within the UPC. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to state its view on inventive step. It confirmed that combining prior-art documents requires a “pointer”, in line with the EPO's problem-solution approach. The mere theoretical possibility of extracting a certain piece of information from a document does not suffice to justify an inventive-step attack. This is one of several decisions where the UPC has shown a strong alignment with EPO case law on substantive patentability. For Prof. Hüttermann personally, the case was also a lesson in oral advocacy before the UPC. During the two appeal hearings, the presiding judge asked unexpected questions that required quick and creative responses while the hearing continued. His practical takeaway is that parties should appear with a small, well-coordinated team: large enough to allow someone to work on a tricky question in the background, but small enough to remain agile. Two or three lawyers seem ideal; beyond that, coordination becomes difficult and “too many cooks spoil the broth”. A Game-Changing CJEU Decision: Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux Surprisingly, one of the most important developments for European patent litigation in the past year did not come from the UPC at all, but from the Court of Justice of the European Union. In Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux, the CJEU revisited the rules on cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia). Previously, under what practitioners often referred to as the GAT/LuK regime, a court in one EU country was largely prevented from granting relief for alleged infringement in another country if the validity of the foreign patent was contested there. This significantly limited the possibilities for cross-border injunctions. In Bosch, the CJEU changed course. Without going into all procedural details, the essence is that courts in the EU now have broader powers to grant cross-border relief when certain conditions are met, particularly when at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state. The concept of an “anchor defendant” plays a central role: if you sue one group company in its home forum, other group companies in other countries, including outside the EU, can be drawn into the case. This has already had practical consequences. German courts, for example, have issued pan-European injunctions covering around twenty countries in pharmaceutical cases. There are even attempts to sue European companies for infringement of US patents based on acts in the US, using the logic of Bosch as a starting point. How far courts will ultimately go remains to be seen, but the potential is enormous. For the UPC, this development is highly relevant. The UPC operates in the same jurisdictional environment as national courts, and many defendants in UPC cases will be domiciled in UPC countries. This increases the likelihood that the UPC, too, can leverage the broadened possibilities for cross-border relief. In addition, we have already seen UPC decisions that include non-EU countries such as the UK within the scope of injunctions, in certain constellations. The interaction between UPC practice and the Bosch jurisprudence of the CJEU is only beginning to unfold. Does the UPC Follow EPO Case Law? A key concern for many patent owners and practitioners is whether the UPC will follow the EPO's Boards of Appeal or develop its own, possibly divergent, case law on validity. On procedural matters, the UPC is naturally different from the EPO. It has its own rules of procedure, its own timelines and its own tools, such as “front-loaded” pleadings and tight limits on late-filed material. On substantive law, however, Prof. Hüttermann's conclusion is clear: there is “nothing new under the sun”. The UPC's approach to novelty, inventive step and added matter is very close to that of the EPO. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears frequently in UPC decisions. Intermediate generalisations are treated with the same suspicion as at the EPO. In at least one case, the UPC revoked a patent for added matter even though the EPO had granted it in exactly that form. The alignment is not accidental. The UPC only deals with European patents granted by the EPO; it does not hear cases on purely national patents. If the UPC were more generous than the EPO, many patents would never reach it. If it were systematically stricter, patentees would be more tempted to opt out of the system. In practice, the UPC tends to apply the EPO's standards and, where anything differs, it is usually a matter of factual appreciation rather than a different legal test. For practitioners, this has a very practical implication: if you want to predict how the UPC will decide on validity, the best starting point is to ask how the EPO would analyse the case. The UPC may not always reach the same result in parallel EPO opposition proceedings, but the conceptual framework is largely the same. Trends in UPC Practice: PIs, Equivalents and Division-Specific Styles Even in its early years, certain trends and differences between UPC divisions can be observed. On preliminary injunctions, the local division in Düsseldorf has taken a particularly proactive role. It has been responsible for most of the ex parte PIs granted so far and applies a rather strict notion of urgency, often considering one month after knowledge of the infringement as still acceptable, but treating longer delays with scepticism. Other divisions tend to see two months as still compatible with urgency, and they are much more cautious with ex parte measures. Munich, by contrast, has indicated a strong preference for inter partes PI proceedings and appears reluctant to grant ex parte relief at all. A judge from Munich has even described the main action as the “fast” procedure and the inter partes PI as the “very fast” one, leaving little room for an even faster ex parte track. There are also differences in how divisions handle amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. Munich has suggested that if a patentee needs to rely on claim amendments or auxiliary requests in a PI, the request is unlikely to succeed. Other divisions have been more open to considering auxiliary requests. The doctrine of equivalents is another area where practice is not yet harmonised. The Hague division has explicitly applied a test taken from Dutch law in at least one case and found infringement by equivalence. However, the Court of Appeal has not yet endorsed a specific test, and in another recent Hague case the same division did not apply that Dutch-law test again. The Mannheim division has openly called for the development of an autonomous, pan-European equivalence test, but has not yet fixed such a test in a concrete decision. This is clearly an area to watch. Interim conferences are commonly used in most divisions to clarify issues early on, but Düsseldorf often dispenses with them to save time. In practice, interim conferences can be very helpful for narrowing down the issues, though parties should not expect to be able to predict the final decision from what is discussed there. Sometimes topics that dominate the interim conference play little or no role in the main oral hearing. A Front-Loaded System and Typical Strategic Mistakes UPC proceedings are highly front-loaded and very fast. A defendant usually has three months from service of the statement of claim to file a full statement of defence and any counterclaim for revocation. This is manageable, but only if the time is used wisely. One common strategic problem is that parties lose time at the beginning and only develop a clear strategy late in the three-month period. According to Prof. Hüttermann, it is crucial to have a firm strategy within the first two or three weeks and then execute it consistently. Constantly changing direction is a recipe for failure in such a compressed system. Another characteristic is the strict attitude towards late-filed material. It is difficult to introduce new documents or new inventive-step attacks later in the procedure. In some cases even alternative combinations of already-filed prior-art documents have been viewed as “new” attacks and rejected as late. At the appeal stage, the Court of Appeal has even considered new arguments based on different parts of a book already in the file as potentially late-filed. This does not mean that parties should flood the court with dozens of alternative attacks in the initial brief. In one revocation action, a plaintiff filed about fifty different inventive-step attacks, only to be told by the court that this was not acceptable and that the attacks had to be reduced and structured. The UPC is not a body conducting ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case actively and to ask parties to focus on the most relevant issues. Evidence Gathering, Protective Letters and the Defendant's Perspective The UPC provides powerful tools for both sides. Evidence inspection is becoming more common, not only at trade fairs but also at company premises. This can be a valuable tool for patentees, but it also poses a serious risk for defendants who may suddenly face court-ordered inspections. From the perspective of potential defendants, protective letters are an important instrument, especially in divisions like Düsseldorf where ex parte PIs are possible. A well-written protective letter, filed in advance, can significantly reduce the risk of a surprise injunction. The court fees are moderate, but the content of the protective letter must be carefully prepared; a poor submission can cause more harm than good. Despite the strong tools available to patentees, Prof. Hüttermann does not view the UPC as unfair to defendants. If a defendant files a solid revocation counterclaim, the pressure shifts to the patentee, who then has only two months to reply, prepare all auxiliary requests and adapt the enforcement strategy. This is even more demanding than at the EPO, because the patentee must not only respond to validity attacks but also ensure that any amended claims still capture the allegedly infringing product. It is entirely possible to secure the survival of a patent with an auxiliary request that no longer covers the defendant's product. In that scenario, the patentee has “won” on validity but lost the infringement case. Managing this tension under tight time limits is a key challenge of UPC practice. The Future Role of the UPC and How to Prepare Today the UPC hears a few hundred cases per year, compared with several thousand patent cases in the US and tens of thousands in China. Nevertheless, both the court itself and experienced practitioners see significant growth potential. Prof. Hüttermann expects case numbers to multiply in the medium term. Whether the UPC will become the first choice forum in global disputes or remain one pillar in parallel proceedings alongside the US and China will depend on the strategies of large patentees and the evolution of case law. However, the court is well equipped: it covers a large, economically important territory, is comparatively cost-effective and offers fast procedures with robust remedies. For companies that may end up before the UPC, preparation is essential. On the offensive side, that means building strong evidence and legal arguments before filing, being ready to proceed quickly and structured, and understanding the specific styles of the relevant divisions. On the defensive side, it may mean filing protective letters in risk-exposed markets, preparing internal processes for rapid reaction if a statement of claim arrives, and taking inspection requests seriously. Conclusion The Unified Patent Court has quickly moved from theory to practice. It offers pan-European relief, fast and front-loaded procedures, and a substantive approach that closely mirrors the EPO's case law. At the same time, national and EU-level developments like the Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision are reshaping the jurisdictional framework in which the UPC operates, opening the door for far-reaching cross-border injunctions. For patent owners and potential defendants alike, the message is clear: the UPC is here to stay and will become more important year by year. Those who invest the time to understand its dynamics now – including its alignment with the EPO, the differences between divisions, and the strategic implications of its procedures – will be in a much better position when the first UPC dispute lands on their desk. Here is the full transcript of the interview: Rolf Claessen:Today's interview guest is Prof. Aloys Hüttermann. He is founder and equity partner of my firm, Michalski · Hüttermann & Partner. More importantly for today's interview, he has written several books about the Unified Patent Court. The first one already came out in 2016. He is co-editor and author of one of the leading commentaries on the UPC and has gained substantial experience in UPC cases so far – one of them even together with me. Thank you very much for being on IP Fridays again, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you for inviting me, it's an honour. How did you get so deeply involved in the UPC? Rolf Claessen:Before we dive into the details, how did you end up so deeply involved in the Unified Patent Court? And what personally fascinates you about this court? Aloys Hüttermann:This goes back quite a while – roughly 13 years. At that time it became clear that, after several failed attempts, Europe would really get a pan-European court and a pan-European patent, and that this time it was serious. I thought: this is going to be the future. That interested me a lot, both intellectually and practically. A completely new system was being built. You could watch how it evolved – and, if possible, even help shape it a bit. It was also obvious to me that this would be a complete game changer. Nobody expected that it would take until 2023 before the system actually started operating, but now it is here. I became heavily interested early on. As you mentioned, my first book on the UPC was published in 2016, in the expectation that the system would start soon. It took a bit longer, but now we finally have it. UPC vs. US and China – speed, cost and impact Rolf Claessen:Before we go deeper into the UPC, let's zoom out. If you compare litigation before the UPC with patent litigation in the US and in China – in terms of speed, cost and the impact of decisions – what are the key differences that a business leader should understand? Aloys Hüttermann:If you look at the three big regions – the UPC territory in Europe, the US and China – these are the major economic areas for many technology companies. One important point is territorial reach. In the UPC, if the conditions are met, you can get pan-European injunctions that cover many EU Member States in one go. We will talk about this later in more detail. On costs there is a huge difference between the US and the UPC. The UPC is much cheaper than US litigation, especially once you look at the number of countries you can cover with one case if the patent has been validated widely. China is different again. The number of patent infringement cases there is enormous. I have seen statistics of around 40,000 infringement cases per year in China. That is huge – compared with roughly 164 UPC infringement cases in the first year and maybe around 200 in the current year. On speed, Chinese courts are known to be very fast. You often get a first-instance decision in about a year. The UPC is comparable: if there is a counterclaim for revocation, you are looking at something like 12 to 15 months for a first-instance decision. The US can be slower, and the procedure is very different. You have full discovery, you may have juries. None of that exists at the UPC. From that perspective, Chinese and UPC proceedings are more similar to each other than either is to the US. The UPC is still a young court. We have to see how influential its case law will be worldwide in the long run. What we already see, at least in Germany, is a clear trend away from purely national patent litigation and towards the UPC. That is inside Europe. The global impact will develop over time. When is the UPC the most powerful tool? Rolf Claessen:Let's take the perspective of a global company. It has significant sales in Europe and in the US and production or key suppliers in China. In which situations would you say the UPC is your most powerful tool? And when might the US or China be the more strategic battleground? Aloys Hüttermann:To be honest, I would almost always consider bringing a case before the UPC. The “bang for the buck” is very good. The UPC is rather fast. That alone already gives you leverage in negotiations. The threat of a quick, wide-reaching injunction is a strong negotiation tool. Whether you litigate in the US instead of the UPC, or in addition, or whether you also go to China – that depends heavily on the individual case: where the products are sold, where the key markets are, where the defendant has assets, and so on. But in my view, once you have substantial sales in Europe, you should seriously consider the UPC. And for that reason alone I expect case numbers at the UPC to increase significantly in the coming years. A landmark UPC case: Syngenta vs. Sumitomo (composition patent) Rolf Claessen:You have already been involved in several UPC cases – and one of them together with me, which was great fun. Looking at the last 12 to 18 months, is there a case, decision or development that you find particularly noteworthy – something that really changed how you think about UPC litigation or how companies should prepare? Aloys Hüttermann:The most important UPC case I have been involved in so far is the Syngenta v. Sumitomo case on a composition patent. It has become a real landmark and was even mentioned in the UPC's annual report. It is important for several reasons. First, it was one of the first cases in which the Court of Appeal said very clearly: if you have established infringement in one Member State, that will usually be enough for a pan-European injunction covering all UPC countries designated by the patent. That is a powerful statement about the reach of UPC relief. Second, the facts were interesting. The patent concerned a composition. We had analysed a sample that had been obtained in the Czech Republic, which is not a UPC country. Later, the same product was marketed under the same name in Bulgaria, which is in the UPC. The question was whether the analysis of the Czech sample could be used as a basis for enforcement in Bulgaria. The Court of Appeal said yes, that was sufficient. Third, the Court of Appeal took the opportunity to say something about inventive step. It more or less confirmed that the UPC's approach is very close to the EPO's problem-solution approach. It emphasised that, if you want to combine prior-art documents, you need a “pointer” to do so. The mere theoretical possibility that a skilled person could dig a particular piece of information out of a document is not enough. For me personally, the most memorable aspect of this case was not the outcome – that was largely in line with what we had expected – but the oral hearings at the appeal stage. We had two hearings. In both, the presiding judge asked us a question that we had not anticipated at all. And then you have about 20 minutes to come up with a convincing answer while the hearing continues. We managed it, but it made me think a lot about how you should prepare for oral hearings at the UPC. My conclusion is: you should go in with a team, but not too big. In German we say, “Zu viele Köche verderben den Brei” – too many cooks spoil the broth. Two or three people seems ideal. One of them can work quietly on such a surprise question at the side, while the others continue arguing the case. In the end the case went very well for us, so I can speak about it quite calmly now. But in the moment your heart rate definitely goes up. The CJEU's Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux decision – a real game changer Rolf Claessen:You also mentioned another development that is not even a UPC case, but still very important for European patent litigation. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes. In my view, the most important case of the last twelve months is not a UPC decision but a judgment of the Court of Justice of the EU (CJEU): Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. This is going to be a real game changer for European IP law, and I am sure we have not seen the end of its effects yet. One example: someone has recently sued BMW before the Landgericht München I, a German court, for infringement of a US patent based on acts in the US. The argument is that this could be backed by the logic of Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux. We do not know yet what the court will do with that, but the fact that people are trying this shows how far-reaching the decision might be. Within the UPC we have already seen injunctions being issued for countries outside the UPC territory and even outside the EU, for example including the UK. So you see how these developments start to interact. Rolf Claessen:For listeners who have not followed the case so closely: in very simple terms, the CJEU opened the door for courts in one EU country to rule on patent infringement that took place in other countries as well, right? Aloys Hüttermann:Exactly. Before Bosch Siemens Hausgeräte v. Electrolux we had what was often called the GAT/LuK regime. The basic idea was: if you sue someone in, say, Germany for infringement of a European patent, and you also ask for an injunction for France, and the defendant then challenges the validity of the patent in France, the German court cannot grant you an injunction covering France. The Bosch decision changed that. The legal basis is the Brussels I Recast Regulation (Brussels Ia), which deals with jurisdiction in civil and commercial matters in the EU. It is not specific to IP; it applies to civil cases generally, but it does have some provisions that are relevant for patents. In Bosch, a Swedish court asked the CJEU for guidance on cross-border injunctions. The CJEU more or less overturned its old GAT/LuK case law. Now, in principle, if the defendant is domiciled in a particular Member State, the courts of that state can also grant cross-border relief for other countries, under certain conditions. We will not go into all the details here – that could fill a whole separate IP Fridays episode – but one important concept is the “anchor defendant”. If you sue a group of companies and at least one defendant is domiciled in the forum state, then other group companies in other countries – even outside the EU, for example in Hong Kong – can be drawn into the case and affected by the decision. This is not limited to the UPC, but of course it is highly relevant for UPC litigation. Statistically it increases the chances that at least one defendant will be domiciled in a UPC country, simply because there are many of them. And we have already seen courts like the Landgericht München I grant pan-European injunctions for around 20 countries in a pharmaceutical case. Rolf Claessen:Just to clarify: does it have to be the headquarters of the defendant in that country, or is any registered office enough? Aloys Hüttermann:That is one of the open points. If the headquarters are in Europe, then it is clear that subsidiaries outside Europe can be affected as well. If the group's headquarters are outside Europe and only a subsidiary is here, the situation is less clear and we will have to see what the courts make of it. Does the UPC follow EPO case law? Rolf Claessen:Many patent owners and in-house counsel wonder: does the UPC largely follow the case law of the EPO Boards of Appeal, or is it starting to develop its own distinct line? What is your impression so far – both on substantive issues like novelty and inventive step, and on procedural questions? Aloys Hüttermann:On procedure the UPC is, of course, very different. It has its own procedural rules and they are not the same as at the EPO. If we look at patent validity, however, my impression is that there is “nothing new under the sun” – that was the title of a recent talk I gave and will give again in Hamburg. Substantively, the case law of the UPC and the EPO is very similar. For inventive step, people sometimes say the UPC does not use the classical problem-solution approach but a more “holistic” approach – whatever that is supposed to mean. In practice, in both systems you read and interpret prior-art documents and decide what they really disclose. In my view, the “error bar” that comes from two courts simply reading a document slightly differently is much larger than any systematic difference in legal approach. If you look at other grounds, such as novelty and added matter, the UPC even follows the EPO almost verbatim. The famous “gold standard” for added matter appears all over UPC decisions, even if the EPO case numbers are not always cited. The same is true for novelty. So the rule-based, almost “Hilbertian” EPO approach is very much present at the UPC. There is also a structural reason for that. All patents that the UPC currently deals with have been granted by the EPO. The UPC does not handle patents granted only by national offices. If the UPC wanted to deviate from EPO case law and be more generous, then many patents would never reach the UPC in the first place. The most generous approach you can have is the one used by the granting authority – the EPO. So if the UPC wants to be different, it can only be stricter, not more lenient. And there is little incentive to be systematically stricter, because that would reduce the number of patents that are attractive to enforce before the UPC. Patent owners might simply opt out. Rolf Claessen:We also talked about added matter and a recent case where the Court of Appeal was even stricter than the EPO. That probably gives US patent practitioners a massive headache. They already struggle with added-matter rules in Europe, and now the UPC might be even tougher. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, especially on added matter. I once spoke with a US practitioner who said, “We hope the UPC will move away from intermediate generalisations.” There is no chance of that. We already have cases where the Court of Appeal confirmed that intermediate generalisations are not allowed, in full alignment with the EPO. You mentioned a recent case where a patent was revoked for added matter, even though it had been granted by the EPO in exactly that form. This shows quite nicely what to expect. If you want to predict how the UPC will handle a revocation action, the best starting point is to ask: “What would the EPO do?” Of course, there will still be cases where the UPC finds an invention to be inventive while the EPO, in parallel opposition proceedings, does not – or vice versa. But those are differences in the appreciation of the facts and the prior art, which you will always have. The underlying legal approach is essentially the same. Rolf Claessen:So you do not see a real example yet where the UPC has taken a totally different route from the EPO on validity? Aloys Hüttermann:No, not really. If I had to estimate how the UPC will decide, I would always start from what I think the EPO would have done. Trends in UPC practice: PIs, equivalents, interim conferences Rolf Claessen:If you look across the different UPC divisions and cases: what trends do you see in practice? For example regarding timelines, preliminary injunctions, how validity attacks are handled, and how UPC cases interact with EPO oppositions or national proceedings? Aloys Hüttermann:If you take the most active divisions – essentially the big four in Germany and the local division in The Hague – they all try to be very careful and diligent in their decisions. But you can already see some differences in practice. For preliminary injunctions there is a clear distinction between the local division in Düsseldorf and most other divisions. Düsseldorf considers one month after knowledge of the infringement as still sufficiently urgent. If you wait longer, it is usually considered too late. In many other divisions, two months is still viewed as fine. Düsseldorf has also been the division that issued most of the ex parte preliminary injunctions so far. Apart from one special outlier where a standing judge from Brussels was temporarily sitting in Milan, Düsseldorf is basically the only one. Other divisions have been much more reluctant. At a conference, Judge Pichlmaier from the Munich division once said that he could hardly imagine a situation where his division would grant an ex parte PI. In his words, the UPC has two types of procedure: one that is fast – the normal main action – and one that is very fast – the inter partes PI procedure. But you do not really have an “ultra-fast” ex parte track, at least not in his division. Another difference relates to amendments and auxiliary requests in PI proceedings. In one recent case in Munich the court said more or less that if you have to amend your patent or rely on auxiliary requests in a PI, you lose. Other divisions have been more flexible and have allowed auxiliary requests. Equivalence is another area where we do not have a unified line yet. So far, only the Hague division has clearly found infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and explicitly used a test taken from Dutch law. Whether that test will be approved by the Court of Appeal is completely open – the first case settled, so the Court of Appeal never ruled on it, and a second one is still very recent. Interestingly, there was another Hague decision a few weeks ago where equivalence was on the table, but the division did not apply that Dutch-law test. We do not know yet why. The Mannheim division has written in one decision that it would be desirable to develop an autonomous pan-European test for equivalence, instead of just importing the German, UK or Dutch criteria. But they did not formulate such a test in that case because it was not necessary for the decision. So we will have to see how that evolves. On timelines, one practical difference is that Düsseldorf usually does not hold an interim conference. That saves them some time. Most other divisions do hold interim conferences. Personally, I like the idea because it can help clarify issues. But you cannot safely read the final outcome from these conferences. I have also seen cases where questions raised at the interim conference did not play any role in the main oral hearing. So they are useful for clarification, but not as a crystal ball. Front-loaded proceedings and typical strategic mistakes Rolf Claessen:If you look at the behaviour of parties so far – both patentees and defendants – what are the most common strategic mistakes you see in UPC litigation? And what would a well-prepared company do differently before the first statement of claim is ever filed? Aloys Hüttermann:You know you do not really want me to answer that question… Rolf Claessen:I do! Aloys Hüttermann:All right. The biggest mistake, of course, is that they do not hire me. That is the main problem. Seriously, it is difficult to judge parties' behaviour from the outside. You rarely know the full picture. There may be national proceedings, licensing discussions, settlement talks, and so on in the background. That can limit what a party can do at the UPC. So instead of criticising, I prefer to say what is a good idea at the UPC. The system is very front-loaded and very fast. If you are sued, you have three months to file your statement of defence and your counterclaim for revocation. In my view, three months are manageable – but only if you use the time wisely and do not waste it on things that are not essential. If you receive a statement of claim, you have to act immediately. You should have a clear strategy within maybe two or three weeks and then implement it. If you change your strategy every few weeks, chances are high that you will fail. Another point is that everything is front-loaded. It is very hard to introduce new documents or new attacks later. Some divisions have been a bit generous in individual cases, but the general line is strict. We have seen, for example, that even if you filed a book in first instance, you may not be allowed to rely on a different chapter from the same book for a new inventive-step attack at the appeal stage. That can be regarded as late-filed, because you could have done it earlier. There is also case law saying that if you first argue inventive step as “D1 plus D2”, and later want to argue “D2 plus D1”, that can already be considered a new, late attack. On the other hand, we had a revocation action where the plaintiff filed about 50 different inventive-step attacks in the initial brief. The division then said: this does not work. Please cut them down or put them in a clear hierarchy. In the end, not all of them were considered. The UPC does not conduct an ex officio examination. It is entitled to manage the case and to tell the parties to limit themselves in the interest of a fair and efficient procedure. Rolf Claessen:I have the feeling that the EPO is also becoming more front-loaded – if you want to rely on documents later, you should file them early. But it sounds like the UPC is even more extreme in that regard. Aloys Hüttermann:Yes, that is true. Protective letters, inspections and the defendant's perspective Rolf Claessen:Suppose someone from a company is listening now and thinks: “We might be exposed at the UPC,” or, “We should maybe use the UPC offensively against competitors.” What would you consider sensible first steps before any concrete dispute arises? And looking three to five years ahead, how central do you expect the UPC to become in global patent litigation compared to the US and China? Aloys Hüttermann:Let me start with the second part. I expect the UPC to become significantly more important. If we have around 200 cases this year, that is a good start, but it is still very small compared to, say, 4,000 to 5,000 patent cases per year in the US and 40,000 or so in China. Even François Bürgin and Klaus Grabinski, in interviews, have said that they are happy with the case load, but the potential is much larger. In my view, it is almost inevitable that we will see four or five times as many UPC cases in the not-too-distant future. As numbers grow, the influence of the UPC will grow as well. Whether, in five or ten years, companies will treat the UPC as their first choice forum – or whether they will usually run it in parallel with US litigation in major disputes – remains to be seen. The UPC would be well equipped for that: the territory it covers is large, Europe is still an important economy, and the UPC procedure is very attractive from a company's perspective. On sensible first steps: if you are worried about being sued, a protective letter can make a lot of sense – especially in divisions like Düsseldorf, where ex parte PIs are possible in principle. A protective letter is not very expensive in terms of court fees. There is also an internal system that ensures the court reads it before deciding on urgent measures. Of course, the content must have a certain quality; a poor protective letter can even backfire. If you are planning to sue someone before the UPC, you should be extremely well prepared when you file. You should already have all important documents and evidence at hand. As we discussed, it is hard to introduce new material later. One tool that is becoming more and more popular is inspection – not just at trade fairs, where we already saw cases very early, but also at company premises. Our firm has already handled such an inspection case. That is something you should keep in mind on both sides: it is a powerful evidence-gathering tool, but also a serious risk if you are on the receiving end. From the defendant's perspective, I do not think the UPC is unfair. If you do your job properly and put a solid revocation counterclaim on the table, then the patentee has only two months to prepare a full reply and all auxiliary requests. And there is a twist that makes life even harder for the patentee than at the EPO. At the EPO the question is mainly: do my auxiliary requests overcome the objections and are they patentable? At the UPC there is an additional layer: do I still have infringement under the amended claims? You may save your patent with an auxiliary request that no longer reads on the defendant's product. That is great for validity, but you have just lost the infringement case. You have kept the patent but lost the battle. And all of this under very tight time limits. That creates considerable pressure on both sides. How to contact Prof. Hüttermann Rolf Claessen:Thank you very much for this really great interview, Aloys. Inside our firm you have a nickname: “the walking encyclopedia of the Unified Patent Court” – because you have written so many books about it and have dealt with the UPC for such a long time. What is the best way for listeners to get in touch with you? Aloys Hüttermann:The easiest way is by email. You can simply write to me, and that is usually the best way to contact me. As you may have noticed, I also like to speak. I am a frequent speaker at conferences. If you happen to be at one of the conferences where I am on the programme – for example, next week in Hamburg – feel free to come up to me and ask me anything in person. But email is probably the most reliable first step. Rolf Claessen:Perfect. Thank you very much, Aloys. Aloys Hüttermann:Thank you. It was a pleasure to be on IP Fridays again. Some of your long-time listeners may remember that a few years ago – when you were not yet part of our firm – we already did an episode on the UPC, back when everything was still very speculative. It is great to be back now that the system is actually in place and working. Rolf Claessen:I am very happy to have you back on the show.

This week we go into the dark heart of American Gestapo: Gregory Bovino's Border Patrol, which pushes ICE to become even more aggressive in his fascist feverdream.  Here to help us make sense of this hellscape is Nick Schwellenbach, a Senior Investigator at the Project on Government Oversight and former Communications Director at the U.S. Office of Special Counsel–a government agency set up after Watergate, meant to protect us from the next Nixon–more on that in this week's bonus show out Thursday.  Bovino grew up a Border Patrol fanboy idolizing fascist fiction and now stalks American cities in a Nazi-style trench coat with a taxpayer-funded film crew glamorizing his violent raids. Like Trump is a showman, Bovino is cruelty as a recruitment tool to consolidate power. Under his un-checked leadership, his border patrol army operates deep inside the U.S., smashing car windows, kidnapping U.S. citizens, and rounding up tens of thousands of people, including veterans and children, into detention centers where deaths are spiking at unprecedented rates.  With the help of questions submitted by a Gaslit Nation listener (thank you, Isabel!) we go into all the pressing questions about Bovino's Border Patrol and also ICE, including what happened to the children who disappeared under Trump's first term and what can be done to protect vulnerable immigrants today? As you listen to this episode, which opens with a clip of Bovino justifying shooting protesters with pepper balls, keep in mind Republicans gave ICE, which works closely with Bovino's Border Patrol, $75 billion over the next four years. They're also operating under aggressive weekly quotas. But is their war chest also for general population control?  For our bonus episode this week, we look at the safeguards that could have prevented Trump's return and why they didn't. To listen to the bonus, subscribe to our Patreon at the Truth-Teller level ($5/month) or higher. We are extremely grateful to our listeners who are keeping us afloat during a very difficult economic time. Every bit of support helps give us the freedom to be independent and tell the truth, so thank you again for making Gaslit Nation possible! If America climbs out of this black hole, it will be because people like you, our Gaslit Nation listeners, refused to look away. Want to hear Gaslit Nation ad-free? Join our community of listeners for bonus shows, exclusive Q&A sessions, our group chat, invites to live events like our Monday political salons at 4pm ET over Zoom, and more! Sign up at Patreon.com/Gaslit! EVENTS AT GASLIT NATION: December 1st 4pm ET – Deaf Republic by Ilya Kaminsky + Total Resistance by H. Von Dach – Poetry and guerrilla strategy: tools for survival and defiance. Minnesota Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: join on Patreon.  Vermont Signal group for Gaslit Nation listeners in the state to find each other: join on Patreon.  Arizona-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to connect, join on Patreon.  Indiana-based listeners launched a Signal group for others in the state to join, join on Patreon.  Florida-based listeners are going strong meeting in person. Be sure to join their Signal group, join on Patreon.  Gaslit Nation Salons take place Mondays 4pm ET over Zoom and the first ~40 minutes are recorded and shared on Patreon.com/Gaslit for our community Show Notes:   Where ICE Has Taken The Most People | On The Grid | WIRED https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uD9ETC80HDA NPR report: This year was the deadliest since 2005 for people in ICE custody  https://www.expressnews.com/news/border-mexico/article/ice-deadliest-year-npr-21119815.php Big Budget Act Creates a "Deportation-Industrial Complex": The result will be a lopsided, enforcement-only machine that will be hard to dismantle. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/big-budget-act-creates-deportation-industrial-complex   Man arrested by Ice dies in jail cell in Long Island, New York: This article is more than 1 month old Officials in Nassau county confirmed death of 42-year-old man to Newsday but declined to share details https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/19/ice-death-long-island-ny   Trump officials launch ICE effort to deport unaccompanied migrant children https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-administration-directs-ice-agents-find-deport-unaccompanied-migrant-2025-02-23/ Federal judge says border patrol chief admitted he lied, in ruling limiting federal agents' use of force in Chicago https://www.cnn.com/2025/11/06/us/gregory-bovino-deposition-chicago-immigration   Greg Bovino's Border Patrol Agents Use Disproportionate Force, Data Shows https://www.pogo.org/investigations/greg-bovinos-border-patrol-agents-use-disproportionate-force-data-shows   Fighting for a government that serves the people. https://www.pogo.org/   8-year-old girl dies in Border Patrol custody in Texas, as agency struggles with overcrowding https://apnews.com/article/border-patrol-child-custody-death-harlingen-2e2b27eeb3da669ee17241b8b3ee9ee2   Detainee Death Reporting https://www.ice.gov/detain/detainee-death-reporting   CBP Fatal Encounters Tracker https://www.aclutx.org/en/cbp-fatal-encounters-tracker   FACT FOCUS: Claims that more than 300,000 migrant children are missing lack context https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-misinformation-migrant-children-missing-7ab0cea2fd2238346197429e952baa8b   How they did it: The New York Times exposes migrant child labor exploitation across 50 states https://journalistsresource.org/media/migrant-children-labor-abuse-goldmith/   Homeland Security agents rescue migrant teen sisters from sex traffickers — after they arrived in US as unaccompanied minors https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/us-news/hsi-agents-rescue-teen-migrant-sisters-from-sex-traffickers/   Gaps in Sponsor Screening and Followup Raise Safety Concerns for Unaccompanied Children https://oig.hhs.gov/reports/all/2024/gaps-in-sponsor-screening-and-followup-raise-safety-concerns-for-unaccompanied-children/   Trump's False Claim of Missing Immigrant Children  https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2025/07/16/trump-false-claim-missing-immigrant-children   Under Joe Biden, Have 85,000 Undocumented Children Gone 'Missing'? https://www.newsweek.com/under-joe-biden-undocumented-children-missing-1812728   Democratic Women's Caucus Open Letter https://juliabrownley.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/dwc-letter-to-dhs-on-ice-impersonators-and-women-s-safety.pdf   How ICE Raids Are Making It Easier for Civilian Men to Assault Immigrant Women: Kylie Cheung argues in this op-ed that a rash of cases of men dressing as plainclothes ICE agents and assaulting immigrant women is possible because ICE agents operate with impunity. https://www.teenvogue.com/story/men-dressed-as-ice-agents-to-assault-immigrant-women-horrifying-trend   Houston man pretended to be ICE agent to rob driver, charging docs allege https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/crime/article/houston-ice-agent-robbery-20395157.php   North Dakota man accused of impersonating an ICE officer when jail staff released an inmate to him https://apnews.com/article/north-dakota-immigration-williston-ice-agent-f89f0f070e5c39cd763a5018017ff332 US sees spate of arrests of civilians impersonating Ice officers https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jun/28/civilians-impersonating-ice-officers   ICE Annual Report Fiscal Year 2022 https://www.ice.gov/doclib/eoy/iceAnnualReportFY2022.pdf Border agent charged with child sex trafficking, fraud in Cochise County https://tucson.com/news/local/border/article_5e596767-4575-485b-88e8-0a6265e5bb41.html The Green Monster: How the Border Patrol became America's most out-of-control law enforcement agency. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/10/border-patrol-the-green-monster-112220/ FBI Warns of Criminals Posing as ICE, Urges Agents to ID Themselves: In a bulletin to law enforcement agencies, the FBI said criminal impersonators are exploiting ICE's image and urged nationwide coordination to distinguish real operations from fakes. https://www.wired.com/story/fbi-warns-of-criminals-posing-as-ice-urges-agents-to-id-themselves/ How a tragic family secret turned Greg Bovino from a quiet country boy into the force of Trump's unflinching border patrol crackdown https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-15288355/greg-bovino-border-patrol-family-secret-donald-trump-immigration.html Revealed: Trump administration retreats on combating human trafficking and child exploitation https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/sep/17/trump-human-trafficking-programs-cut Trump administration takes hundreds of migrant children out of their homes, into government custody https://archive.ph/qc65g#selection-2109.7-2109.106 Oversight Agency Says 32,000 Unaccompanied Children Are Missing. But Are They? https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/are-32000-unaccompanied-children-missing/  Judge rules against Department of Homeland Security: "Given the inconsistencies between the BWC footage and the use of force reports, with the BWC footage undermining what agents put in their reports, the Court cannot rely on Parra's [who is Bovino's deputy] broad generalizations of protesters' actions or Defendants' responses to those actions. Turning to Bovino, the Court specifically finds his testimony not credible.  Bovino appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing "cute" responses to Plaintiffs' counsel's questions or outright lying." "To the extent that agents use ChatGPT to create their use of force reports, this further undermines their credibility and may explain the inaccuracy of these reports when viewed in light of the BWC footage." https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571/gov.uscourts.ilnd.487571.281.0_3.pdf

Attorneys John “Jack” Delany, Gary Samms and John Hare, from Qualified Member law firm Marshall Dennehey discuss the best approaches for attorneys to prevent nuclear verdicts in the courtroom. 

Stories we're following this morning at Progress Texas:With SCOTUS Justice Sam Alito's stay on the El Paso court panel's decision against the Trump map, a full decision of the Supreme Court is next - and could take long enough to end the discussion for the midterms: https://www.elpasotimes.com/story/news/politics/2025/11/22/us-supreme-court-samuel-alito-grants-stay-in-texas-redistricting-lawsuit/87412332007/...The State invoked the "Purcell principle" in its application to Alito, which discourages courts from action interfering with impending elections: https://www.democracydocket.com/news-alerts/texas-asks-scotus-to-reimpose-anti-minority-gerrymander/Texas colleges and universities are becoming nationally notorious for our slipping standards regarding free speech rights on campus: https://www.houstonchronicle.com/opinion/editorials/article/free-speech-ut-college-protest-trump-21198378.php...A faculty committee at Texas A&M has determined that administrators did not have a solid case in firing English professor Melissa McCoul: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/22/texas-am-professor-fired-faculty-panel-ruling/...UT Austin remains silent on the Trump compact, even as the deadline to accept or reject passed on Friday: https://www.texastribune.org/2025/11/17/university-of-texas-trump-policy-changes-federal-funding/We're excited to see YOU at one (or both!) of our 2025 Holiday Parties this December in Austin and Dallas - for the first time, featuring live podcast tapings! Tickets and sponsorship opportunities are available now: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://act.progresstexas.org/a/progress-texas-holiday-parties-2025⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Check out our web store, including our newly-expanded Humans Against Greg Abbott collection: ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://store.progresstexas.org/⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠Thanks for listening! Our monthly donors form the backbone of our funding, and if you're a regular, we'd like to invite you to join the team! Find our web store and other ways to support our important work at ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠ ⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠https://progresstexas.org⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠⁠.

This Day in Legal History: Lee Harvey Oswald ShotOn November 24, 1963, two days after President John F. Kennedy's assassination, the nation watched in shock as Lee Harvey Oswald—the alleged assassin—was gunned down on live television. The shooter, Dallas nightclub owner Jack Ruby, entered the basement of the Dallas police headquarters and fatally shot Oswald as he was being transferred to the county jail. The killing unfolded in front of journalists, cameras, and law enforcement, searing itself into the American consciousness and further fueling public distrust in official accounts of the assassination.Though Ruby claimed his act was motivated by grief and a desire to spare Jacqueline Kennedy the ordeal of a trial, his actions raised immediate concerns about the adequacy of security in high-profile cases. Oswald's death eliminated any opportunity for a public trial, which would have offered a transparent legal accounting of the events in Dallas. Ruby was later convicted of murder, though his conviction was overturned on appeal before he died of cancer in 1967.The legal ramifications of Oswald's televised murder were broad and lasting. It led to reforms in detainee protection, prompted scrutiny over media access in sensitive law enforcement operations, and spotlighted the vulnerability of chain of custody and judicial process in emotionally charged cases. The event also highlighted the need for careful separation between law enforcement procedures and the media spectacle surrounding them. Ruby's case prompted legal scholars to revisit the balance between a defendant's right to a fair trial and the public's right to observe proceedings.This legal flashpoint helped set the stage for subsequent debates about pretrial publicity, venue changes, and judicial instructions to mitigate media influence on juries. It also foreshadowed a new era where courtroom access and high-profile criminal justice collided in an age of mass media.The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit will hear arguments in a press freedom case between the Associated Press (AP) and President Donald Trump's administration. The case centers on whether the White House violated constitutional protections by restricting AP's access to presidential events after the agency refused to adopt Trump's preferred term “Gulf of America” instead of the long-recognized “Gulf of Mexico.”In April, a federal judge—appointed by Trump—granted a preliminary injunction in AP's favor, requiring the administration to restore the agency's full access. However, the appeals court later paused that ruling while it considers the government's challenge. The Trump administration argues that news organizations do not have a constitutional right to “special access” to areas like the Oval Office.AP's lawsuit, filed in February, claims the restrictions are retaliatory and violate the First and Fifth Amendments. The case has drawn attention for its potential implications beyond journalism, touching on the broader question of whether the government can punish speech that conflicts with its messaging. The administration has defended its actions as part of a general press policy rather than targeted retaliation.The conflict escalated after Trump signed an executive order to rename the Gulf, which AP chose not to adopt due to its editorial standards. The White House then limited the agency's access and removed AP and Reuters from the regular press pool. AP has framed the case as critical to preventing government coercion of the press.US appeals court to rule if Trump can ban AP from Oval Office | ReutersNewly unsealed court filings allege that Meta Platforms shut down internal research after discovering evidence that Facebook use caused measurable harm to users' mental health. In a 2020 internal study, dubbed “Project Mercury,” Meta partnered with Nielsen to examine the effects of Facebook deactivation. Users who left the platform for a week reported lower levels of depression, anxiety, loneliness, and social comparison—results the company allegedly found troubling enough to halt further study and dismiss as tainted by public bias.Despite internal acknowledgment that the findings were valid, Meta did not publish the results and later told Congress it could not quantify harm from its products. The lawsuit—filed by U.S. school districts against Meta, TikTok, Snapchat, and Google—claims the platforms concealed known risks from users, parents, and educators. Plaintiffs also allege that Meta's safety features were deliberately underdeveloped, and that high thresholds for user removal allowed exploitative behavior to persist unchecked.Among the more serious accusations: Meta allegedly deprioritized child safety concerns in favor of platform growth, suppressed internal safety testing, and allowed human trafficking accounts to remain active until repeated violations were flagged—up to 17 times. Plaintiffs say Meta and other companies also tried to buy favorable public positioning by sponsoring child advocacy groups, such as TikTok's internal brag about its influence over the National PTA.Meta has denied the allegations, calling them misleading and based on selective quotes. The company says it has robust teen safety measures and that accounts involved in trafficking are now removed upon first report. A hearing on the matter is scheduled for January in federal court.Meta buried ‘causal' evidence of social media harm, US court filings allege | ReutersThe Trump administration is moving forward with plans to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and relocate its functions across six other federal agencies, including Labor and Health and Human Services. According to multiple sources familiar with the effort, senior officials and department directors have been required to sign non-disclosure agreements (NDAs), an uncommon move for a civilian agency without a national security mandate. These agreements are reportedly being used to limit information sharing as the reorganization proceeds behind closed doors.Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced the restructuring this week, framing it as a way to “end federal micromanagement” while still supporting education through other agencies. Some staff have already transitioned to new posts, and more are expected to relocate by January. However, specifics on the timeline and scope of the overhaul remain vague, even to congressional oversight committees and education advocates.Critics argue the administration is sidelining Congress and the public in what they call an opaque and potentially destabilizing shift. Senator Patty Murray called the effort “sabotage,” citing the lack of transparency and collaboration. Meanwhile, McMahon has reportedly met with lawmakers and urged Congress to formalize the changes through legislation, though no formal bill has yet been introduced.US Education Department requiring non-disclosure agreements in Trump reorganization, sources say | ReutersIn a deep-dive investigation, FOIAball uncovered how UCLA Athletics appears to have routed large sums of money intended for football player NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) deals through a tax-exempt charity—Shelter 37, run by the co-founder of the school's official NIL collective, Bruins for Life. This maneuver may have allowed donors to receive tax deductions for contributions that ultimately compensated athletes, despite recent IRS rulings stating such collectives do not qualify for charitable status.Emails obtained through public records show that UCLA development staff actively coached donors to send checks to Shelter 37 while explicitly designating those funds for Bruins for Life, the school's NIL program. These emails often discussed timing, amounts, and communication with the charity's leadership to ensure the money was redirected as intended. In several cases, UCLA staff reassured donors that contributions through donor-advised funds (DAFs)—normally restricted from supporting private benefit—could be routed to Shelter 37 and still benefit athletes.After the IRS began denying charitable status to NIL collectives in 2023 due to private benefit concerns, most programs shifted to non-deductible donations. But UCLA's workaround relied on Shelter 37's 501(c)(3) status to continue offering donors deductions, despite Shelter 37's own filings showing the vast majority of its funds in 2024—$3.6 million of $4.8 million—were raised for UCLA football NIL purposes. By contrast, it spent only $200 on scholarships for at-risk youth, its purported mission.Legal experts, including yours truly, told FOIAball that this could constitute fraudulent behavior, noting that charities must exercise control over their funds and serve the public interest—not act as pass-throughs for private benefit. UCLA officials, when asked for comment, did not address the specifics. Meanwhile, Shelter 37's president denied improper coordination but acknowledged the charity paid players to appear at events, an arrangement experts say still violates nonprofit law if the real intent is athlete compensation.How UCLA used a friendly charity to get tax-free NIL money This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

What happens when your personal data is misused or stolen — can you really take a company to court?

What does the next era of plaintiff law look like and how can trial lawyers position themselves to thrive in it?In this episode of Best Practices with Kenny Berger, Kenny sits down with attorney, entrepreneur, and community-builder Bob Simon to talk about the forces reshaping plaintiff practice today. From AI intake and automated case review to national referral networks, mentorship communities, and the rise of modern legal brands, Bob shares a clear and compelling vision of where the profession is headed.They discuss:How AI and automation are leveling the playing field for small and midsize firmsWhy community, collaboration, and mentorship will define the next generation of great lawyersBuilding a practice that blends efficiency with human connectionCreating systems that free lawyers to focus on high-impact workThe importance of work-life balance and “financial stress-free time” with familyThis episode offers practical insights on how to evolve your practice as the legal landscape transforms.Hosted by South Carolina Injury Lawyer Kenny Berger | Best Practices with Kenny Berger

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.com

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-epstein-chronicles--5003294/support.

What happens when your personal data is misused or stolen — can you really take a company to court?

Jeffrey Epstein's longtime attorney and financial fixer, Darren Indyke, has been repeatedly linked to the intricate structuring of Epstein's vast financial network — a labyrinth of trusts, shell companies, and opaque entities that concealed the flow of money used to fund his operations and, allegedly, pay off victims and accomplices. “Structuring,” in financial terms, refers to deliberately breaking up large transactions to avoid federal reporting requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act. Investigators have long suspected that Epstein and Indyke employed similar tactics to mask the source and movement of Epstein's wealth, from offshore accounts to foundations like Gratitude America Ltd., which funneled millions in donations and “grants” to scientific and philanthropic fronts that enhanced Epstein's public image. Indyke's deep involvement in setting up and managing these entities made him not just Epstein's lawyer but a key architect of the financial smoke screen that protected Epstein's empire for decades.After Epstein's death, Indyke's role came under heavier scrutiny, as he continued to act as co-executor of the estate — even while being named in multiple civil suits accusing him of enabling or facilitating Epstein's criminal conduct. Plaintiffs argued that the same structuring tactics used to obscure Epstein's finances were now being repurposed to shield assets from victims' compensation claims. Indyke has denied wrongdoing, asserting he merely executed Epstein's instructions as a lawyer and fiduciary. However, investigators have questioned how much he knew — and how complicit he was — in maintaining the secrecy that allowed Epstein's trafficking network to operate unchecked for years. Whether by legal design or deliberate obfuscation, the structuring overseen by Indyke remains one of the most revealing examples of how Epstein's financial crimes were hidden in plain sight, wrapped in the legitimacy of corporate paperwork and professional discretion.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comBecome a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/the-moscow-murders-and-more--5852883/support.

Federal employee unions are suing the Trump administration for including a new essay question on most job applications. One of the questions asks candidates how they plan to advance the Trump administration's priorities. Plaintiffs in the lawsuit say that amounts to a loyalty test for the nonpartisan civil service Federal News Network's Jory Heckman is here with more details. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Cortney Nicolato, President and CEO, United Way of Rhode Island - who are a plaintiff in the legal challenge to the Trump administration's SNAP suspension - joins the show to offer perspective on the travel and impact of the case, See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Healthcare Warriors: Why and How to Become One by Dr Ira Williams https://www.amazon.com/Healthcare-Warriors-Why-How-Become/dp/B0BJ5TQGLT Drirawilliams.com Has our Healthcare System failed you or a loved one?Do you want to take part in making that System far better?Wanted! Healthcare Warriors where they live! Many people complain about our current Healthcare System. Dr. Williams is looking for people who desire to become Healthcare Gamechangers. States are where the current Healthcare Delivery System must be made far better, and Dr. Williams offers a logical and doable process to begin to create a 21st century Healthcare Delivery System within each state, and Healthcare Warriors can initiate that process where they live. Highlights of Dr. Williams' career: - 23 y.o. Air Force Squadron Commander & Summary Court Martial Office. - President of his state's surgical society for 2 years. - Hospital medical staff¬ Executive Committee member 2-2year terms. - Oldest active Plaintiff's surgical malpractice expert witness in the nation.About the author Dr. Ira Williams is a board certified oral surgeon and in writing his four books on health care he has recognized why the current system is broken and how to begin to create a far better system.

This Day in Legal History: Nevada Admitted as 36th StateOn October 31, 1864, Nevada was officially admitted as the 36th state of the United States, a move driven as much by wartime politics as by the territory's readiness for statehood. With President Abraham Lincoln seeking re-election and needing support for the proposed 13th Amendment to abolish slavery, the Republican-controlled Congress saw strategic value in adding another loyal Union state. Although Nevada's population was below the threshold typically required for statehood, its vast mineral wealth and political alignment with the Union helped accelerate the process. To meet the tight timeline ahead of the 1864 election, Nevada's leaders moved quickly to draft a state constitution.Facing logistical challenges in sending the document from Carson City to Washington, D.C., Nevada officials made the unprecedented decision to transmit the entire text—over 16,000 words—via telegraph. The transmission took over 12 hours and cost more than $4,000, making it the longest and most expensive telegram ever sent at the time. The decision proved effective: the telegram reached the capital in time, and Congress formally approved Nevada's admission on the same day.The speed and cost of Nevada's telegraphic constitution became a symbol of the urgency and improvisation of Civil War-era governance. The state's motto, “Battle Born,” reflects both its literal birth during the Civil War and the political battle over slavery and Union preservation. Nevada's admission also helped secure support for Lincoln's re-election and for the 13th Amendment, which passed Congress in January 1865.In a recently disclosed legal filing, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) sought taxpayer information on over 1.28 million individuals from the IRS, though only about 47,000 records matched. The request, part of a broader effort to access data on individuals under final removal orders, was submitted under a carve-out in Section 6103 of the Internal Revenue Code, which permits limited disclosures during criminal investigations. The IRS initially rejected ICE's requests citing legal constraints, but a memorandum of understanding in April allowed for limited data sharing. A subsequent refined request from ICE in June targeted a smaller group of 1.27 million, but again, only a small percentage matched IRS records, and many failed to meet legal standards for processing.The case arose from a lawsuit filed by taxpayer advocacy groups and unions, which argue that these disclosures violate the Tax Reform Act, the Privacy Act, and the Administrative Procedure Act. Plaintiffs are seeking a preliminary injunction to halt further sharing. Internal emails reveal IRS officials were concerned about the unprecedented scale and legality of the request, and officials emphasized the need to keep the data sharing confidential. The IRS typically handles about 30,000 such data requests a year, each requiring detailed justification and high-level agency approval. Critics warn that this massive data handover poses urgent threats to taxpayer privacy and due process rights.ICE Sought Records on 1.3 Million Taxpayers, Filing Shows (1)U.S. District Judge Carl Nichols praised two federal prosecutors, Samuel White and Carlos Valdivia, for their handling of a case against Taylor Taranto, despite both being suspended by the Justice Department the day before. The suspension followed their reference to January 6 rioters as “a mob of rioters” and mention of Donald Trump allegedly sharing Barack Obama's address in a sentencing memo. Judge Nichols commended their work as professional and exemplary, stating they upheld the highest prosecutorial standards.Taranto was sentenced to 21 months in prison for firearm and hoax-related charges after being arrested near Obama's D.C. residence in 2023. However, he will not serve additional time due to pretrial detention. Though originally charged for participating in the Capitol riot, those charges were dropped under President Trump's mass clemency order for January 6 defendants issued at the start of his second term. Taranto's defense claimed his statements about explosives were meant as “dark humor” and that he hadn't committed any violence.After White and Valdivia's suspension, a revised sentencing memo—stripped of January 6 and Trump references—was filed by two replacement prosecutors, including a senior DOJ official. The incident reflects broader tensions under the Trump administration, which has repeatedly moved to minimize references to Capitol riot violence and penalize prosecutors involved in politically sensitive cases.US judge praises prosecutors who were suspended after referring to January 6 ‘mob' | ReutersA federal judge allowed the Trump administration to move forward with firing nearly all remaining employees of the Department of Justice's Community Relations Service (CRS), an agency established in the 1960s to mediate racial and ethnic conflicts. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, while denying a temporary restraining order sought by civil rights groups, noted that the plaintiffs failed to show immediate, irreparable harm. However, she also stated that the groups are likely to succeed in proving that the executive branch cannot lawfully dissolve a congressionally created agency.The lawsuit, brought by 11 organizations including the NAACP and the Ethical Society of Police, challenges the Justice Department's recent “reduction in force” that would leave just one CRS employee. The move follows a pattern under the Trump administration, which has rejected all new requests for CRS services and proposed no funding for the agency in its budget. Plaintiffs argue that a termination notice stating the layoffs aim to “effectuate the dissolution” of CRS confirms unlawful intent.Although Talwani's ruling allows the firings to proceed, she emphasized that the final outcome may favor the plaintiffs as the case continues. The layoffs coincide with a government shutdown that began October 1, meaning the employees would have been furloughed regardless. The DOJ claims it is merely reorganizing, not eliminating, the agency, though it concedes that only Congress has the authority to formally abolish it.Judge allows Trump administration to fire most of DOJ race-relations agency's employees | ReutersHagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, a prominent plaintiffs' law firm, is under scrutiny in two high-profile class actions, facing judicial criticism and potential sanctions. In Seattle, a federal judge sanctioned the firm for over $223,000 after finding it misled the court and opposing counsel about its client's withdrawal from an antitrust case against Apple and Amazon. The judge said Hagens Berman failed to disclose that their client, who later disappeared from proceedings, had expressed his intent to exit the case months earlier. The firm argues it acted ethically under client confidentiality rules and has asked the judge to revise her dismissal ruling.In a separate matter in Philadelphia, the firm faces possible new sanctions in long-running litigation over thalidomide-related birth defect claims. A special master found misconduct, including altering an expert report and advancing claims lacking legal merit. While Hagens Berman disputes the findings, calling them outside the master's authority and biased, U.S. District Judge Paul Diamond upheld the report. The firm has now requested that Diamond recuse himself, citing an appearance of bias due to his close coordination with the special master.In both cases, Hagens Berman maintains its actions were in good faith and within legal and ethical bounds, while critics and courts point to patterns of misrepresentation and overreach.Law firm Hagens Berman battles sanctions in Apple, thalidomide cases | ReutersThis week's closing theme is by Camille Saint-Saëns.Camille Saint-Saëns was a French composer, organist, conductor, and pianist whose long career spanned the Romantic era and touched the early 20th century. Born in Paris in 1835, he was a child prodigy who began composing at the age of three and gave his first public performance at ten. Saint-Saëns was celebrated for his extraordinary versatility, writing symphonies, concertos, operas, chamber music, and choral works. Though deeply rooted in classical forms, he was an early supporter of contemporary composers like Liszt and Wagner, even as he remained skeptical of more radical modernism. His music often combined technical brilliance with elegance, and his clear, structured style made him a bridge between tradition and innovation. He was also a prolific writer and amateur astronomer, and his intellectual breadth sometimes earned him criticism from those who found his music too refined or academic. Still, Saint-Saëns maintained influence across Europe, and his works remain staples of the concert repertoire.This week's closing theme is Saint-Saëns' Danse Macabre. Originally a song for voice and piano based on a poem by Henri Cazalis, Saint-Saëns later reworked Danse Macabre into a tone poem for orchestra. It depicts Death summoning the dead from their graves at midnight on Halloween for a wild, skeletal waltz. A solo violin—tuned unconventionally to evoke a harsh, eerie sound—plays Death's dance theme, while xylophone rattles mimic clacking bones. The piece was controversial at its premiere in 1875 but quickly became a concert favorite, especially around Halloween. With its vivid orchestration and playful macabre imagery, Danse Macabre is one of classical music's most iconic musical depictions of the supernatural, perfectly capturing the spirit of the season.Without further ado, Saint-Saëns Danse Macabre—enjoy! This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

Attorneys John “Jack” Delany, Gary Samms and John Hare, from Qualified Member law firm Marshall Dennehey discuss the best approaches for attorneys to prevent nuclear verdicts in the courtroom. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Attorneys John “Jack” Delany, Gary Samms and John Hare, from Qualified Member law firm Marshall Dennehey discuss the best approaches for attorneys to prevent nuclear verdicts in the courtroom.

*Content Warning: Institutional child abuse, body-image abuse, disordered eating, attack therapy, cultic abuse, grooming, medical trauma, death, alcohol use disorder, psychological and physical trauma, child labor, distressing themes.  *Free + Confidential Resources + Safety Tips:  somethingwaswrong.com/resources    Snag your ticket for the live Home for the Holidays event here: https://events.humanitix.com/swwxtgi  Check out our brand new SWW Sticker Shop!: https://brokencyclemedia.com/sticker-shop  *SWW S23 Theme Song & Artwork:  The S24 cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart Follow Something Was Wrong: Website: somethingwaswrong.com  IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcast TikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast  Follow Tiffany Reese: Website: tiffanyreese.me  IG: instagram.com/lookieboo *Sources  “DeSisto School.” Unsilenced, www.unsilenced.org/program-archive/us-programs/massachusetts/desisto-school/ “Exhibits in Desisto Investigation.” Scribd, Scribd, www.scribd.com/document/324581177/Exhibits-in-DeSisto-Investigation “Off-Broadway's Inappropriate Extends Again to Jan. 30.” Playbill, Playbill, 2 Dec. 2021, playbill.com/article/off-broadways-inappropriate-extends-again-to-jan-30-com-86238 Radio, WAMC Northeast Public. “Controversial School for Troubled Teens to Close.” WAMC, 16 Feb. 2012, www.wamc.org/new-york-news/2004-04-13/controversial-school-for-troubled-teens-to-close Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, Appellee, V. A. Michael Desisto, Defendant, Appellee,the Desisto Schools, Inc., Defendant, Appellant.Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of Labor, Plaintiff, Appellant, V. A. Michael Desisto, et al., Defendants, Appellees, 929 f.2d 789 (1st Cir. 1991) :: Justia, law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/929/789/124165/

After the Washington Supreme Court ruled that misleading subject lines can violate the state's Commercial Electronic Mail Act (CEMA), Skechers now faces a similar class action. The lawsuit claims the company created a false sense of urgency by announcing that sales would end — only to later extend them. This episode explores how the case underscores growing risks around email marketing and why brands should review subject line practices to avoid costly CEMA violations. Hosted by Simone Roach. Based on a blog post by Gonzalo Mon.

This Day in Legal History: Saturday Night MassacreOn October 20, 1973, a pivotal event in American legal and political history unfolded: the “Saturday Night Massacre.” Special Prosecutor Archibald Cox was fired by Solicitor General Robert Bork at the direct order of President Richard Nixon. Nixon's decision came after both Attorney General Elliot Richardson and Deputy Attorney General William Ruckelshaus refused to carry out the order and instead chose to resign. Cox had insisted on obtaining White House tapes related to the Watergate break-in, and Nixon, citing executive privilege, ordered him removed.The dismissals plunged the Justice Department into chaos and sparked widespread public outrage. Nixon's actions were viewed by many as a blatant abuse of power and a threat to the independence of the justice system. Congress was inundated with demands for Nixon's impeachment, and confidence in the executive branch eroded further. Though Bork ultimately carried out the dismissal, he later stated he believed it was his duty to preserve the functioning of the Justice Department.The fallout from the Saturday Night Massacre significantly intensified the Watergate investigation. Within months, new Special Prosecutor Leon Jaworski was appointed, and he continued the push for the tapes. Eventually, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled unanimously in United States v. Nixon (1974) that Nixon had to turn them over. The tapes revealed evidence of a cover-up, which led directly to Nixon's resignation in August 1974.President Trump commuted the federal prison sentence of former U.S. Representative George Santos, ordering his immediate release. Santos, who had been sentenced in April to over seven years for fraud and identity theft, was serving time for falsifying donor information and inflating fundraising figures to gain support from the Republican Party during his 2022 campaign. His short and controversial congressional tenure ended in expulsion following numerous scandals, including false claims about his education, employment history, and family background.Trump announced the commutation on Truth Social, arguing that Santos had been “horribly mistreated” and drawing comparisons to other “rogues” in the country who do not face such lengthy prison terms. Earlier in the week, Santos had publicly pleaded for clemency, praising Trump and expressing remorse for his actions. The commutation fits into a broader pattern of Trump's second-term use of clemency powers, which included mass pardons of January 6 defendants and relief for political figures from both parties. The Constitution grants the president wide authority to issue pardons or commute sentences for federal offenses.Trump commutes prison sentence of former lawmaker George Santos, orders him released | ReutersA proposed class action lawsuit was filed in federal court in Connecticut, accusing eight major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, and U.S. Bank—of conspiring to fix the U.S. prime interest rate for over three decades. The plaintiffs, representing potentially hundreds of thousands of borrowers, claim the banks coordinated to align their prime lending rates with the Wall Street Journal Prime Rate, which is typically set at three percentage points above the federal funds rate. This rate influences trillions of dollars in consumer and small-business loans, such as credit cards and home equity lines.The suit alleges that this coordination inflated borrowing costs for consumers and small businesses, who were led to believe the rates were set independently. It also asserts that up until 1992, the Wall Street Journal published a range of prime rates that reflected competitive differences among banks, but since then has moved to publishing a single rate derived from input by a select group of large banks. Although the Wall Street Journal and Dow Jones are not named as defendants, the lawsuit challenges the transparency and independence of the current rate-setting process.Plaintiffs argue that decades of nearly identical prime rate pricing among the banks defies the notion of independent rate-setting. The banks named in the case have not yet made court appearances and mostly declined to comment. The suit, Normandin et al v. JPMorgan Chase Bank N.A. et al, aims to hold the institutions accountable for what plaintiffs call a longstanding, anti-competitive scheme.Borrowers sue major US banks over alleged prime rate-fixing scheme | ReutersChief Judge Colm F. Connolly of the U.S. District Court for Delaware issued a ruling that could significantly alter how early-stage patent litigation is handled, particularly regarding willful infringement claims. Reversing his earlier stance, Connolly held that requests for enhanced damages due to willful patent infringement are not standalone claims subject to early dismissal if the underlying infringement claims proceed. The decision came in a case involving clot-removal device patents, Inari Medical Inc. v. Inquis Medical Inc.This shift may complicate early settlements by increasing uncertainty and widening the valuation gap between plaintiffs and defendants. Because Delaware is a leading venue for patent disputes, Connolly's ruling may influence how courts across the country handle similar motions, although it's uncertain whether other judges will adopt the same reasoning. Legal scholars and practitioners note the opinion could lead to more aggressive pre-suit tactics from patent holders, such as sending demand letters alleging willfulness, which could provoke accused companies to initiate preemptive litigation in favorable jurisdictions.Connolly's approach represents a sharp departure from his prior treatment of willfulness claims and, according to experts, effectively lets plaintiffs include such allegations in their complaints without risk of early dismissal. However, the ruling also reaffirmed that plaintiffs still need to establish pre-suit knowledge of the patents to succeed on claims of post-suit willfulness or indirect infringement.Connolly's Willfulness Ruling Risks Scuttling Patent Settlements This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.minimumcomp.com/subscribe

The Combs Defendants assert that Plaintiff's complaint fails on multiple legal grounds and should be dismissed. First, they argue that no plausible claim is alleged under Rule 12(b)(6): the Complaint lacks sufficient factual allegations to meet the heightened pleading standard for fraud, defamation, RICO claims, or negligence. They contend Plaintiff offers nothing more than conclusory statements and unsupported legal labels, without demonstrating the required “who, what, when, where, and how” of each alleged misrepresentation or wrongful act. As a result, the Complaint falls short of establishing any viable cause of action warranting further discovery or litigation.Second, the Combs Defendants underscore that statutory protections—such as the federal safe-harbor for forward-looking statements, New York's absolute privilege for certain communications, and state-law immunity standards—shield them even if some wrongdoing is assumed. Moreover, any purported defamatory or false statements are not actionable as they are either opinion or based on disclosed facts, and the RICO claims are improperly pled in that they lack a pattern of racketeering activity. In light of these deficiencies and immunity defenses, the Court is asked to dismiss the Complaint against the Combs Defendants, with prejudice and without leave to amend.to contact me:bobbycapucci@protonmail.comsource:gov.uscourts.nysd.630375.72.0.pdf

Nineteenth Week after PentecostText: Luke 18:1-8Access the Order of Worship hereAccess the Music Booklet here

Plaintiffs say they told the flight crew about the husband's stroke before takeoff but the airline instead chose to takeoff and fly to Spain before the husband could get medical attention; Plaintiffs say the delay caused the husband's injuries to be much greater than they would have been otherwise. https://www.lehtoslaw.com

Watch The X22 Report On Video No videos found (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:17532056201798502,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-9437-3289"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs");pt> Trump's GDP has hit 3.8%, the economy is on fire even without the Fed lowering the rates the way Trump wants. The [DS] is now trying to stop Trump's economy. They have now created another event which they are trying to use to stop Trump's economy, this will fail just like everything else. The [DS] is holding steady on the shutdown. The cover story is that they want money for illegal medical insurance, this is falling apart. They know they don't have the people so they are using this to distract from the push to WWIII and they are hoping that ICE, NG will cease their operations. Trump is using this to drain the swamp, expose the D's.  This is a no win situation for the [DS]. Trump knows the playbook and most likely he is using backchannels to speak to Putin. No war, no civil unrest, clean and swift.   Economy (function(w,d,s,i){w.ldAdInit=w.ldAdInit||[];w.ldAdInit.push({slot:18510697282300316,size:[0, 0],id:"ld-8599-9832"});if(!d.getElementById(i)){var j=d.createElement(s),p=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];j.async=true;j.src="https://cdn2.decide.dev/_js/ajs.js";j.id=i;p.parentNode.insertBefore(j,p);}})(window,document,"script","ld-ajs"); https://twitter.com/profstonge/status/1973712063529631995 Treasury Sec. Bessent: Dem Shutdown to Cut Trump's GDP Growth The Democrats' government shutdown could reduce gross domestic product (GDP) growth that has emerged under President Donald Trump, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said Thursday. "We were left with a mess [by the Biden administration]. It was the largest deficit when we weren't in a recession, weren't at war, and [now] we are fixing the deficit," Bessent said. "There could be a discussion, but this isn't the way to have a discussion — shutting down the government and lowering the GDP." "We could see a hit to the GDP, a hit to growth, and a hit to working America." Source: newsmax.com Political/Rights https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973706295841816644 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973469908358086957   https://twitter.com/C_3C_3/status/1973547026534277539 https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973488279153680690   https://twitter.com/libsoftiktok/status/1973479707619590625 https://twitter.com/DHSgov/status/1973535704337486011  this Salvadoran man is not going to be able to remain in our country. He will never be allowed to prey on innocent Americans again. Never forget the Democrats flew to a foreign land on the US taxpayer's dime to break bread with this terrorist gang member and visit him in prison. While they continue to fight for criminal illegal aliens, we will continue to put the safety of the American people FIRST. https://twitter.com/EricLDaugh/status/1973715576750305650     DOGE Federal Court Rules Bans on Carrying Firearms in Post Offices Are Unconstitutional, Democrats Hardest Hit In a win for the Second Amendment and law-abiding gun owners across America, a federal court has ruled that bans on carrying firearms in U.S. Post Offices are unconstitutional.  , Chief United States District Judge Reed O'Connor handed down an opinion on Firearms Policy Coalition Inc, et.al. v. Bondi. FPC was joined by the Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) in challenging the federal law. The ruling also applies to carrying firearms on property surrounding post offices. Here's more, via Bearing Arms: O'Connor wrote that the law “is unconstitutional under the Second Amendment with respect to Plaintiffs' (and their members) possession and carrying of firearms i...

Too many professionals pursue prestige and big paydays, only to feel trapped in exhausting, unfulfilling careers. Nowhere is that more obvious than in Big Law, where young attorneys trade passion for paychecks—often at the cost of burnout, depression, and a life they never wanted.Bill Reid broke that mold. As a nationally recognized trial lawyer and co-founder of Reid Collins, he's spent decades taking on corporate giants—banks, accounting firms, and institutions most people thought were untouchable. In his new book, Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiffs' Law, he reveals the truth behind Big Law's broken model and shows why pursuing passion and purpose leads not only to success, but to freedom.What makes Bill's story resonate far beyond the legal world is the life he's designed along the way—one of wealth, health, impact, and experiences that his peers envy. His journey is proof that you don't have to sacrifice your freedom to build real prosperity.In this episode, you'll learn: 1.) Why Big Law traps so many young attorneys—and how to avoid falling into the same paycheck-driven path.2.) How AI is disrupting industries like law—automating tasks like document review and contracts, and forcing efficiency over billable hours.3.) Bill's blueprint for an “epic life”—balancing high-stakes work, entrepreneurship, health, and unforgettable experiences with friends and family.Show Notes: LifestyleInvestor.com/258Tax Strategy MasterclassIf you're interested in learning more about Tax Strategy and how YOU can apply 28 of the best, most effective strategies right away, check out our BRAND NEW Tax Strategy Masterclass: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/taxStrategy Session For a limited time, my team is hosting free, personalized consultation calls to learn more about your goals and determine which of our courses or masterminds will get you to the next level. To book your free session, visit LifestyleInvestor.com/consultationThe Lifestyle Investor InsiderJoin The Lifestyle Investor Insider, our brand new AI - curated newsletter - FREE for all podcast listeners for a limited time: www.lifestyleinvestor.com/insiderRate & ReviewIf you enjoyed today's episode of The Lifestyle Investor, hit the subscribe button on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, or wherever you listen, so future episodes are automatically downloaded directly to your device. You can also help by providing an honest rating & review.Connect with Justin DonaldFacebookYouTubeInstagramLinkedInTwitterSee Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

In breaking news, A Republican Federal Judge, used Trump enabler Kari Lake's own words against her, to find her “dripping in indifference” and not only blocking her efforts to fire yet another 500 employees at Voice of America, but also observed that the Trump Administration's conduct before him would support civil contempt proceedings if only the Plaintiff would ask him for it. Michael Popok unpacks Judge Lamberth's order and his chastising of the Supreme Court while he is at it on his latest hot take. Done With Debt: Visit https://DoneWithDebt.com and talk to a strategist for FREE. Visit https://meidasplus.com for more! Remember to subscribe to ALL the MeidasTouch Network Podcasts: MeidasTouch: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/meidastouch-podcast Legal AF: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/legal-af MissTrial: https://meidasnews.com/tag/miss-trial The PoliticsGirl Podcast: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-politicsgirl-podcast The Influence Continuum: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-influence-continuum-with-dr-steven-hassan Mea Culpa with Michael Cohen: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/mea-culpa-with-michael-cohen The Weekend Show: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/the-weekend-show Burn the Boats: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/burn-the-boats Majority 54: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/majority-54 Political Beatdown: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/political-beatdown On Democracy with FP Wellman: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/on-democracy-with-fpwellman Uncovered: https://www.meidastouch.com/tag/maga-uncovered Coalition of the Sane: https://meidasnews.com/tag/coalition-of-the-sane Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Starting your own law firm can be one of the most rewarding (or one of the most challenging) decisions you'll ever make as a lawyer. In this episode of The Effective Lawyer Podcast, Jack Zinda breaks down the 7 essential questions every attorney should ask before taking the leap into running a practice.From understanding your “why” to building financial runway, generating business, handling risk, and surrounding yourself with the right support, this episode gives attorneys a framework for deciding if now is the right time to start a firm — and how to avoid common mistakes.What You'll Learn in This Episode:The most important question to ask before starting a law firm.How much financial runway you really need.Why client acquisition matters more than anything.The balance between being a lawyer and a CEO.How to prepare for uncertainty and risk.The systems you need beyond hustle.Why mentors, advisors, and family support are essential.Whether you're a young lawyer considering going solo or a seasoned attorney ready to take control of your career, this episode will help you make smarter, more confident decisions about your future.Learn more and explore other episodes at zdfirm.com/the-effective-lawyerHave a question for Jack? jack@zindalaw.com 

*Content warning: substance use disorder, death, distressing and mature topics, drug use, institutional child abuse, emotional, physical and sexual violence of adolescents, childhood abuse, grooming.  *Free + Confidential Resources + Safety Tips:  somethingwaswrong.com/resources    *SWW S23 Theme Song & Artwork:  The S24 cover art is by the Amazing Sara Stewart Follow Something Was Wrong: Website: somethingwaswrong.com  IG: instagram.com/somethingwaswrongpodcast TikTok: tiktok.com/@somethingwaswrongpodcast  Follow Tiffany Reese: Website: tiffanyreese.me  IG: instagram.com/lookieboo *Sources  "Academy at Ivy Ridge Withdraws From World Wide Association of Specialty Programs & Schools." PRNewswire, January 1, 2006 https://web.archive.org/web/20120925185503 Bruening, Lexi, "District Attorney: dozens of Ivy Ridge abuse complaints pour in after documentary." 7 News, WWNY, March 11, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/03/11/district-attorney-dozens-ivy-ridge Chomik, Alexandra, "TORTURE CHAMBER What was the Academy at Ivy Ridge?" The U.S. Sun, Mar 6 2024 https://www.the-sun.com/tv/10592100/what-was-academy-at-ivy-ridge  Editor, Letter to the. “Letter to the Editor: Bob Lichfield Offers Rebuttal to Allegations in Netflix Documentary.” St. George News, 27 Mar. 2024, www.stgeorgeutah.com/opinion/letter-to-the-editor-opinion/letter-to-the-editor-bob-lichfield-offers-rebuttal-to-allegations-in-netflix-documentary/article_c6e27554-f37b-555a-b4be-2c31f617c546.html. "Former Academy at Ivy Ridge students meet in Ogdensburg, rally outside city hall" 7 News, WWNY, April 27, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/04/27/former-academy-ivy-ridge Hill, Michael, "Netflix docuseries on abuse allegations at New York boarding school prompts fresh investigation." InfoTelNews, April 03, 2024 https://infotel.ca/newsitem/us-boarding-academy-abuse-claims  Kenton, Luke, "'ABUSER UNMASKED' Amy Ritchie is named as the Ivy Ridge ‘predator' by four alleged victims who claim sexual abuse & sick grooming cycle." The Sun UK, March 23, 2024 https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/26880799/academy-ivy-ridge-abuser-amy-ritchie “Key to His Schools' Success? It's God, Founder Says.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 13 July 2003, www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2003-jul-13-na-toughbar13-story.html Kubler, Katherine, creator and director. The Program: Cons, Cults and Kidnapping. Netflix, 2024 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31183637/  Mitchell, Max, "IDirector: Ivy Ridge to close until fall" Watertown Daily Times, MARCH 12, 2009 https://web.archive.org/web/20160530232325 “Riot at Cult School Finally Helped Close It after Abused Students Fought Back.” The US Sun, The US Sun, 28 Mar. 2024, www.the-sun.com/news/10623840/academy-ivy-ridge-riot-cult-school-closed-abuse-netflix/.  Rutherford, Diane, "NYS saw serious problems at Ivy Ridge in 2006, says letter obtained by 7 News." 7 News, WWNY, Mar. 12, 2024 https://www.wwnytv.com/2024/03/12/nys-saw-serious-problems-ivy-ridge Semple, Kirk, "Melee Keeps Spotlight on Hard Life at Academy." The New York Times, June 8, 2005 https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/nyregion NewsNation. “Teens' Alleged New York Boarding School Sexual Abuser Identified: Report | Banfield.” YouTube, 22 Apr. 2024 www.youtube.com/watch?v=-_oKRuKXdAQ.  “UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK, BRUCE DUNGAN, et al., Plaintiffs v. THE ACADEMY AT IVY RIDGE, et al., Defendants.” April 22, 2008 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-nynd Warner, Greg, "Riot at Ivy Ridge School for Troubled Teens." NCPR, May 19, 2005 https://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story Winters, David, "Ivy Ridge, home sold for $2.8m." Watertown Daily Times, APRIL 25, 2009 https://web.archive.org/web/20140130123642 7 News. "Former Academy at Ivy Ridge Students Meet in Ogdensburg, Rally Outside City Hall." YouTube, 27 Apr. 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRNMUgnUkNw 

John is joined by William T. Reid IV, Senior Founding Partner of Reid Collins & Tsai LLP, and author of Fighting Bullies: The Case for a Career in Plaintiff's Law.  They discuss Bill's view that young lawyers are too often funneled into BigLaw careers before they understand the full range of options available in the legal profession—particularly plaintiffs' work.The impetus for Bill's book came from his experience teaching at the University of Texas School of Law and advising students who often expressed frustration at the lack of career guidance and exposure to alternative paths.  The law school hiring process, particularly the On-Campus Interview (OCI) process, now often takes place in January of the students' first year—rather than the fall of the students' second year.  This, Bill believes, is too soon for the students to have meaningful legal experience or career insights.  The result is a “conveyor belt” that locks students into BigLaw roles primarily for the salary, often at the expense of passion, fulfillment, and long-term satisfaction.Bill's book makes the case for the personal and professional rewards of plaintiffs' practice.  He emphasizes that his firm, Reid Collins, generally only brings cases after extensive pre-suit investigation.  This selectivity allows him to accept cases he believes in which brings deep meaning and satisfaction to his work.  He argues that plaintiffs' lawyers, especially those focused on commercial and institutional wrongdoing, play a vital societal role by holding wrongdoers accountable, especially when government agencies fail to act.  While not every case—or plaintiff's lawyer—meets a high moral bar, the ability to choose meaningful work and act on principle often leads to a highly satisfying career in law.Finally, John and Bill also discuss the evolution of the legal profession, including how artificial intelligence may reshape law firm structures by increasing efficiency and altering the traditional BigLaw pyramid.  These changes may lead to firms pursuing alternative billing structures to traditional hourly billing.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In the 1980s, a group of wealthy young men calling themselves the Billionaire Boys Club set out to make millions under the leadership of charismatic con man Joe Hunt. What started as a flashy business-meets-brotherhood venture quickly spiraled into a Ponzi scheme, manipulation, and two brutal murders — one of a fellow scam artist, and another of a wealthy father kidnapped for ransom. Thank you to this week's sponsors! See thicker, stronger, faster-growing hair with less shedding in just 3-6 months with Nutrafol. For a limited time, Nutrafol is offering our listeners $10 off your first month's subscription and free shipping when you go to Nutrafol.com and enter the promo code MOMS.  Get organized, refreshed, and back to routine for way less. Head to Wayfair.com right now to shop all things home. Wayfair. Every style. Every home. Elevate your fall wardrobe essentials with Quince. Go to Quince.com/moms  for free shipping on your order and 365 day returns.  Right now save 20% on your FIRST order and get a free cat toy at PrettyLitter.com/moms. Terms and conditions apply. See site for details. Check-out bonus episodes up on Spotify and Apple podcast now! Get new episodes a day early and ad free, plus chat episodes, at Patreon.com/momsandmysteriespodcast .    To advertise on the show, contact sales@advertisecast.com or visit https://www.advertisecast.com/MomsandMysteriesATrueCrimePodcast.    Check-out Moms and Mysteries to find links to our tiktok, youtube, twitter, instagram and more.      Sources: Billionaire Boys Club Bodyguard Admits Slaying in TV Interview May 21, 1993 Free Joe Hunt https://www.newspapers.com/image/402515483/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 3, 1987 HUNT v. PLILER CSP CDC (2003) | FindLaw https://www.newspapers.com/image/402516769/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 4, 1987 https://www.newspapers.com/image/404875828/?match=1&terms=%22Billionaire%20boys%20club%22 Feb 20, 1987 Charges In Famed Death Dropped / Victim's son accused in `billionaire' slaying Nov 7, 2000 Former Billionaire Boy wants drug trial moved | Local News | smdailyjournal.com Oct 21, 2005 Ex-Billionaire Boys Club member sought for vehicular manslaughter | Reuters May 13, 2013 brian eslaminia letter : r/MenendezBrothers https://web.archive.org/web/20160305061613/https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/1987/02/07/saga-of-fast-track-group-told-at-trial/41c5b752-dcfe-46db-bb36-c13e6b29531b/ Feb 7, 1987 https://web.archive.org/web/20210804131916/https://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a37200506/billonaire-boys-club-joe-hunt-true-story/ original, Sept. 1986, updated Aug 4, 2021 No. 13-56207 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT JOSEPH HUNT, Petitioner-Appellant, v. TIM V. VIRGA, How the 'Billionaire Boys Club' Led to Murder Aug 13, 2106 https://charleyproject.org/case/ronald-george-levin WITNESS SAYS CLUB FOUNDER DIRECTED MURDER OF BEVERLY HILLS MAN - The New York Times 1987 https://web.archive.org/web/20171101155156/https://www.nytimes.com/1987/04/23/us/murder-conviction-for-club-leader.html A Timeline of the Entire Menendez Brothers Murder Case https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/11.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/2.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/3.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/4.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/5.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/6.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/7.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/8.html https://mail.crimelibrary.org/notorious_murders/young/joe_hunt/9.html Joe Hunt, Plaintiff-appellant, v. National Broadcasting Company, Inc.; Itc Productions, Inc.,defendants-appellees, 872 F.2d 289 (9th Cir. 1989) :: Justia The True Story of the Billionaire Boys Club Original 1986, Sept.  The Billionaire Boys' Club Billionaire Boys Club Founder Convicted Of Murder Is Asking Gov. Brown For Parole - CBS Los Angeles https://www.newspapers.com/image/404116359/?match=1&terms=Dosti Jan 26, 1988 https://www.newspapers.com/image/404116662/?match=1&terms=Dosti https://freejoehunt.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/box-4-rt-volume-53-of-101-pages-7982-8195.pdf.pdf ESLAMINIA v. WHITE (1998) | FindLaw Two BBC members get life in prison - UPI Archives Billionaire Boys Club's Joe Hunt seeks cut in life sentence | News, Sports, Jobs - Times Republican The Billionaire Boys Club Podcast Tells a Twisted Tale of Greed, Murder and 1980s Excess August 3, 2020 Governor Gavin Newsom 1303 10th Street, Suite 1173 Sacramento, CA 95814 Re: Joe Hunt https://www.newspapers.com/image/402980517/?match=1&terms=James%20Pittman https://news.google.com/newspapers?id=iAYqAAAAIBAJ&pg=6928,221426 https://ciris.mt.cdcr.ca.gov/details?cdcrNumber=D6186 https://freejoehunt.com/reward/